The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Thu Dec 13, 2018 3:56 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3801 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184 ... 191  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2018 12:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:21 pm
Posts: 2881
Location: One valley over from Hayward fault.
Does anyone know if the radar on the Mk57 Director Missouri carried in 1945 is ranging only unit, or does the director have the ability to acquire target without visual help and is thus a true blind fire system?

_________________
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2018 6:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 9:07 pm
Posts: 196
chuck wrote:
Does anyone know if the radar on the Mk57 Director Missouri carried in 1945 is ranging only unit, or does the director have the ability to acquire target without visual help and is thus a true blind fire system?


This suggests it was not a primarily a blind fire system:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_HUZSk8c2c

But it could do blind firing.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 11:54 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:25 pm
Posts: 1339
Location: England
Possibly a silly question, but is there any consistency to the main turret top coating/colour on the modernised Iowas? I see pictures where they are hull colour, others dark grey, presumably anti-skid. Sometimes different on the same ship. What about the 5" mounts?

I'm also seeing a lot of variation in the extent to which the deck around No.3 turret and the helipad is planked (or not). Again, what's the rhyme and reason for this?

_________________
Vlad


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 4:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 3:41 pm
Posts: 1407
Location: Wallburg, NC
Vlad wrote:
Quote:
Possibly a silly question, but is there any consistency to the main turret top coating/colour on the modernised Iowas? I see pictures where they are hull colour, others dark grey, presumably anti-skid. Sometimes different on the same ship. What about the 5" mounts?

I'm also seeing a lot of variation in the extent to which the deck around No.3 turret and the helipad is planked (or not). Again, what's the rhyme and reason for this?


The std. painting scheme for all USN ships is Deck Gray on horizontal surfaces, Hull Gray (or Haze Gray as we used to call it) on vertical surfaces. Now that all 4 IOWAs are museum ships it doesn't surprise me that the individual ships (and pictures of those ships) show variations in the paint shades, etc. I don't know whether or not the caretakers are required to buy official Navy paints or use "equivalents". Keep in mind some photos come from when the ships were mothballed and thus the paints were possibly faded and obviously in need of maintenance. The 5"/38 dual gun mounts follow the same pattern.

As for the main deck areas around Turret 3 - NEW JERSEY (being the 1st of the 4 ships to be refurbished in 1981-82) has a different deck plating pattern than the other 3 ships. This is the metal deck plating that was installed to accommodate the storage of additional helicopters and some say to cut down on deck maintenance. Personally, I don't think that (maintenance) was a legitimate or factual reason for the plating being installed. I am not sure that the other 3 ships have the same or also different plate patterns. You would need to compare overhead photos of each one to verify this. Variations may also be due to local shipyard changes necessitated by ???

Hope this helps,

Hank

_________________
HMS III
Wallburg, NC
BB-62 vet 68-69

Builder's yard:
USS NEW JERSEY (BB-62) 67-69 1:200
USS PENNSYLVANIA (BB-38) Late 1940 1:200
USS STODDARD (DD-566) 66-68 1:144
Finished:
USN Sloop/Ship PEACOCK (1813) 1:48
ROYAL CAROLINE (1748) 1:47
AVS (1768) 1:48


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 6:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 6:08 pm
Posts: 151
Location: Yorktown, Indiana, USA
All four Iowas have different patterns of non-skid on their fantails, it is an easy way to identify the ships once you know the patterns. Missouri had the most area covered, Wisconsin the least. New Jersey had a unique pattern of exposed teak surrounding Turret 3. The helo deck itself was slightly raised and had an inclined ramp on either side. On all four ships this was covered with non-skid, on Wisconsin it was the only area which was.

_________________
https://inchhighguy.wordpress.com/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 7:17 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:25 pm
Posts: 1339
Location: England
Thanks guys, the fantail plating pattern makes sense now. :wave_1: there are a lot of mis-labelled pictures of the class and you can't see the hull number in all of them so it may have added to the confusion but I think I see the differences now.

For the turret tops, it definitely looks to me like sometimes they're deck grey and other times haze grey in service. Not talking about pictures of the ships as museums.

_________________
Vlad


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 8:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 6:08 pm
Posts: 151
Location: Yorktown, Indiana, USA
One thing to keep in mind is the tops of Turrets 2 & 3 had UNREP rigs on them, Turret 1 did not. Non-skid was applied to 2 & 3 for safety around the UNREP gear. Non-skid areas can appear darker depending on the light. On Missouri the UNREP fittings were picked out in white, and the turret edges were outlined in white. Turret 1 had a large "63" applied in white only.

Check the tops of the 5" mounts for the specific ship and time period you are modeling, the extent of the deck grey varied.

_________________
https://inchhighguy.wordpress.com/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Hull Shape
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2018 6:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 9:07 pm
Posts: 196
I was going back over the table of offsets data for the Iowa class. This data is rounded off to the nearest 1/16th of an inch. So, when you are dealing with constant slopes, the rounding gives steps in the data. I was doing an analysis to identify where things actually are straight. The plans indicate that the hull is sides are straight from FR54 to FR121. However, it is clear there are some other straight areas aft of FR121.

In doing this analysis, it appears that in the molded data, there is a slight knuckle in the hull between FR148 and FR186.

Attachment:
Screen Shot 2018-06-16 at 6.41.06 PM.png
Screen Shot 2018-06-16 at 6.41.06 PM.png [ 196.59 KiB | Viewed 660 times ]


Attachment:
Screen Shot 2018-06-16 at 6.41.29 PM.jpg
Screen Shot 2018-06-16 at 6.41.29 PM.jpg [ 155.75 KiB | Viewed 660 times ]


Here is a view of some TOO points at the center of the section. The knuckle is at the 5th point from the top.

Attachment:
Screen Shot 2018-06-16 at 7.01.46 PM.png
Screen Shot 2018-06-16 at 7.01.46 PM.png [ 20.6 KiB | Viewed 660 times ]


You can smooth this out but that requires creating an S curve below the knuckle point.

I have not seen a knuckle like this on any model nor on any hull lines from plans from other sources. However, it looks like it is there in the data.

It appears from the data that the area 46' 5" above the baseline to the top of the sheer strake is straight until the aft perpendicular. In the zone of FR186 and aft, the hull below curves smoothly into this straight area. At FR148 and forward the hull below also joins smoothly (and as you move forward the straight area starts to do deeper).

I was wondering if anyone had notice this on one of the ships. I suspect it would be hard to see because the sheer strake goes below this knuckle for its entire length.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 12:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 11:30 pm
Posts: 219
Location: Fullerton, CA
Hey Jim
Sent you some photos
That knuckle shows up only in the right light.


James


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: USS Kentucky
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2018 7:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 9:07 pm
Posts: 196
Does anyone know if the USS Kentucky (USS Illinois) had a different hull form than the other four?

It was this picture that raised that question to me:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/016630.jpg

In addition to lacking a bow chock, it looks like the sheer strake is much narrower at the top.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2018 8:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 1986
same hull form as used on the other Iowas.
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/016606.jpg
Kentucky (BB-66) is moved from her building dock at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Virginia, circa 20 January 1950. The ship, completed only up to her second deck, was launched to clear the drydock, so that Missouri (BB-63) could undergo repairs there following her 17 January 1950 grounding. Note that Kentucky upper bow section is stowed on her deck, immediately in front of her forward barbette.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/016608.jpg
Ship's bow being transported on a large crane barge from Newport News, Virginia, to the Norfolk Naval Shipyard, circa May-June 1956. It was used to repair Wisconsin (BB-64), which had been damaged in a collision on 6 May 1956.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/66.htm


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2018 9:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 1902
The forward shell plating transitions to the heavier midships plate appear to be the same. However it is my understanding that Illinois and Kentucky had a somewhat different and supposedly improved anti torpedo arrangement. Whether or not this had any discernible external expression I do not know. My guess is not...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2018 10:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 3:41 pm
Posts: 1407
Location: Wallburg, NC
Fliger747 wrote:
Quote:
The forward shell plating transitions to the heavier midships plate appear to be the same. However it is my understanding that Illinois and Kentucky had a somewhat different and supposedly improved anti torpedo arrangement. Whether or not this had any discernible external expression I do not know.


I think that Norman Friedman mentions something regarding the BB-65/66 design in his U.S. Battleships: An Illustrated Design History, but my copy is at my shop - there possibly was some improvement in hull defense in these two ships that was a further change in their internal layout and structural design.

_________________
HMS III
Wallburg, NC
BB-62 vet 68-69

Builder's yard:
USS NEW JERSEY (BB-62) 67-69 1:200
USS PENNSYLVANIA (BB-38) Late 1940 1:200
USS STODDARD (DD-566) 66-68 1:144
Finished:
USN Sloop/Ship PEACOCK (1813) 1:48
ROYAL CAROLINE (1748) 1:47
AVS (1768) 1:48


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2018 10:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 1902
Hank:

That was probably my reference, I think whatever the design changes were also incorporated in the Montana design. Possibly a change in the liquid loading scheme?

Back home tomorrow night late and can check it out.

Cheers: Tom


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jul 16, 2018 10:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 1902
With regards to the knuckle aft mentioned earlier, this is shown on the body plan on page 149 in Garzke and Dulin at about 29' 6" above baseline. It extends a bit further aft than the original design as the hull contours were altered after model tests indicated a change in shafting.

T


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jul 16, 2018 10:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 1902
Garzke and Dulin are very vague with regards to the side protective system, which was still classified at the time of the book, 1976 and 1995. The only comment was that the last two ships (I'll and Ky) were modified as a result of Caisson tests and war experience. I would not expect any external expression of this.

Friedman: P 314 briefly mentions caisson tests in 1943 in connection with the design of the Midway Class carriers and a modification to the design of the torpedo protection scheme for Ill and Ky, too late to be incorporated in the first 4 Iowa's. An improvement of about 20% was expected.

Again no information as to any external expression.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 10:40 pm
Posts: 335
Location: San Diego
Hi all...

LOOOOOoooooooonnnnng time no post here. I changed scales for my project and have become absorbed in the new build, and have been more active on a different board. Sadly, one of my cats caused my 1/200 Missouri to fall four-feet onto hard tile floor (just the hull, and this is a different cat than the one that got my Boston, else I'd have one fewer cats). There is some damage, but - surprisingly - the grafted-in part came through unscathed.

I have a couple specific questions regarding 20mm mounts on BB63. After scrutinizing a LOT of photos, it appears that the mounts on Missouri differ from those on Iowa in at least one very significant area: Missouri's mounts have what appears to be a circular splinter (ricochet?) shield mounted horizontally about a third of the way up on the pedestal. Iowa's mounts do not have this feature - at least in the photos I have. I have not looked at photos of 62 or 64 yet.

Questions: does anyone a) know what these actually are, and b) does anyone have actual dimensions for them? See drawing below for an idea of what I'm talking about.

Hope you all have been doing well!
Randy


Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2018 10:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 1986
I don't think it is a splinter shield but an aid for the gunner to get more height so that he can angle the front of the gun barrel downward more to get surface skimming aircraft.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2018 10:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 10:40 pm
Posts: 335
Location: San Diego
David... thanks for the reply. Was wondering if it is a step/stand of some sort. But if you were to visualize someone standing on that plate with their shoulders in the rests - even if they were balancing on the tips of their toes/boots, their body would be at a nearly 45-degree angle, which to me seems extremely awkward.

I've read thru all the available OP documents and especially OP909, which deals specifically with the different versions of 20mm mounts. None of them reference this addition. Yet it was clearly added to all of Missouri's 20mm guns. Curious.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2018 10:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 1986
but the gunner will be higher up so that the barrel would be pointing on a downward angle.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3801 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184 ... 191  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 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