The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Wed Oct 16, 2019 11:37 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 370 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 19  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:07 pm 
Please give your address and I will send you something in the mail that will help you.

Dino Carancini wrote:
Laurence the source is right and the photo is the same I was looking, but you posted the Exeter as it was in 1941.

I was refering to this profile ( not sure we can post such kind of thing due the copyright if not please a admin delete my reply ):

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y28/Ru ... er1932.jpg


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 2:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:46 am
Posts: 412
>snip<

Thank you.

Dino

wr wrote:
Please give your address and I will send you something in the mail that will help you.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 6:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:20 am
Posts: 1374
Location: Warwickshire, England
He means postal address Dino

wr please see books section on these forums.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 8:25 am 
Offline
Starling Models
Starling Models

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 4:48 pm
Posts: 773
Location: North Wales
Any chance of a copy Dino? Been struggling with that area myself although I am a long way behind you.

Mike

_________________
Starling Models

http://www.starling-models.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:12 am 
Your postal address.


quote="Dino Carancini"]d.carancini@virgilio.it

Thank you.

Dino


wr wrote:
Please give your address and I will send you something in the mail that will help you.

Dino Carancini wrote:
Laurence the source is right and the photo is the same I was looking, but you posted the Exeter as it was in 1941.

I was refering to this profile ( not sure we can post such kind of thing due the copyright if not please a admin delete my reply ):


Image
[/quote]


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:46 am
Posts: 412
Laurence Batchelor wrote:
He means postal address Dino

wr please see books section on these forums.


..ops sry I was thinking email-address, thank you Laurence for the correction.

Dino Carancini
via Pertini 8
43039 Salsomaggiore (PR)
Italy


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 10:45 am 
Dear Mr Caracini,
Am posting two sketches to you tomorrow of Exeter's aft superstructure. Use for general guidence only. For the precise measurements you will HAVE to refer to the "AS FITTED" plans.
By 1939 the box shaped structure between fore funnel and the bridge structure had been covered over, which makes it easier to model.
Please post here when you receive the material.

Dino Carancini wrote:
Laurence Batchelor wrote:
He means postal address Dino

wr please see books section on these forums.


..ops sry I was thinking email-address, thank you Laurence for the correction.

Dino Carancini
via Pertini 8
43039 Salsomaggiore (PR)
Italy


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 10:56 am 
Have looked the Russian profile; get rid of it.


Dino Carancini wrote:
Laurence Batchelor wrote:
He means postal address Dino

wr please see books section on these forums.


..ops sry I was thinking email-address, thank you Laurence for the correction.

Dino Carancini
via Pertini 8
43039 Salsomaggiore (PR)
Italy


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 11:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:20 am
Posts: 1374
Location: Warwickshire, England
The Russian profile drawing is free!

WR please see O/P class thread in the books section.

Cheers

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: EXETER's Catapults
PostPosted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 8:06 am 
Most drawings (such as the one posted by Laurence Batchelor earlier in this thread) of EXETER's catapults show a 'V'-shaped configuration, with two catapults pointing at about 40 degrees from the ships axis to port and starboard; some drawings show a short fore'n'aft section of track joining the after ends of the catapults. However, Leo Marriott's book Catapult Aircraft (Barnsley: Pen & Sword Aviation, 2006) includes the following statement:
"As completed .... Exeter also carried only a single catapult and aircraft. However, by the time they re-equipped with Ospreys, Exeter had been modified to carry two aircraft on fixed EIIH catapults angled port and starboard, with one staggered slightly aft of the other so that two aircraft could be stowed with wings folded." (my underlining)
I believe Marriott to be mistaken (certainly she was completed without a catapult at all - a number of photos showing this exist - and I know of no photos showing a single catapult), and suspect that, when first fitted for catapulting she had two in the 'V' configuration (not staggered), retaining this arrangement until sunk.

Any opinions (or confirmation)?


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 9:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:20 am
Posts: 1374
Location: Warwickshire, England
There's also this what appears to be a constructors drawing in the iffy Russian book online:-

Image

I'm with you Tim I've never seen her commissioned with a single catapult only with the 'V' type.

Could Marriott be suggesting she had a different one for a very brief time for a trail maybe?

The RN were certainly toying around with catapults at this time.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 2:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:26 am
Posts: 1688
Location: The Netherlands
I'd say! That is very good! :thumbs_up_1:

_________________
If all else fails, a complete pig-headed refusal to see facts in the face will see us through. - General Melchett


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 3:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:20 am
Posts: 1374
Location: Warwickshire, England
Beautiful work Dino, I'm happy she turned out so wonderfully.

Is the NMM mail server bouncing emails back then?
Try this email address instead :- AChoong@nmm.ac.uk

I wish I had my Exeter 'As Fitteds' back in my possession then I could show you the catapult and aft superstructure properly

Kind Regards
Laurence

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:49 am 
The problem with the drawings shown here is that this type, (double extending or slider type) was only used on two of the Phaeton class cruisers as completed, and these were fixed awartships between the two funnels flush with the forecastle deck level.
To use these drawings on any other ships would be an error.
Exeter used the single extending type, while York as completed had a FOLDING type, whereby the two sections lay alongside one another. When in use, one of the sections turned horizontally through 180 degrees to connect with the fore end of the first section, thus giving the required length for take off. Hood also had this type of catapult, fitted on the quarterdeck.
Later the folding type was removed from the York and replaced with a single extending/slider type, to allow for the use of the Walrus type aircraft.

PS; Anything that comes out of eastern Europe or Russia is often very misleading to model makers.

I hope that this is of some use value to model makers.




Laurence Batchelor wrote:
There's also this what appears to be a constructors drawing in the iffy Russian book online:-

Image

I'm with you Tim I've never seen her commissioned with a single catapult only with the 'V' type.

Could Marriott be suggesting she had a different one for a very brief time for a trail maybe?

The RN were certainly toying around with catapults at this time.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 5:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:20 am
Posts: 1374
Location: Warwickshire, England
There are problems of course with 'As fitteds'

1) Cost and the access are biggies!
2) The sheer size of them, you need a large surface e.g. 'pasting table' size to roll them out.
3) Unlike commercial plans whereby usually 1-3 sheets are crammed with info, the 'As fitteds' each have a seperate area of the ship or information on each sheet, making you have to order several sheets which hikes the costs up still further.
4) If it can be avoided I'd advise large scale modellers who wish to use them should only buy around 3 sheets. The side-on profile, the sheet which gives the above deck profiles and the rigging plan sheet. As wr points out sometimes you will need the 'Alterations and Additions' sheets but not all ships have these drawn or sometimes their included on the former sheets.
5) See my previous posts above their accuracy and coverage which again for modellers can cause problems.

Suffice to say they are still the best plans source to work from despite the above problems and combined with photographs make the best source to work from.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 5:53 pm 
Young Lawrence,
You are giving out somewhat misleading information here.

i General arrangement "as fitted" set.
Order the following:
(a) Profile
(b) Forecastle deck
(c) Superstructure and bridge decks

The above should be orderd at HALF SIZE of the original; the originals will be drawn at 1" = 8'.



ii (a) "as fitted" rig sheet
(b) "as fitted WT sheet

The above should be ordered at full size. The originals wre drawn at 1" = 16'.

It is likely that some As and As are contained on the original "as fitted" set.
Seperate A and A fly sheets for wartime are unlikely to have survived in this case. And any way this is not required in this case.

There is no such thing as an above deck profile sheet, there is just the profile sheet.

If the plans are ordered at a scale of 1" = 16' then costs will be very much reduced.





Laurence Batchelor wrote:
There are problems of course with 'As fitteds'

1) Cost and the access are biggies!
2) The sheer size of them, you need a large surface e.g. 'pasting table' size to roll them out.
3) Unlike commercial plans whereby usually 1-3 sheets are crammed with info, the 'As fitteds' each have a seperate area of the ship or information on each sheet, making you have to order several sheets which hikes the costs up still further.
4) If it can be avoided I'd advise large scale modellers who wish to use them should only buy around 3 sheets. The side-on profile, the sheet which gives the above deck profiles and the rigging plan sheet. As wr points out sometimes you will need the 'Alterations and Additions' sheets but not all ships have these drawn or sometimes their included on the former sheets.
5) See my previous posts above their accuracy and coverage which again for modellers can cause problems.

Suffice to say they are still the best plans source to work from despite the above problems and combined with photographs make the best source to work from.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 7:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 5:56 pm
Posts: 1185
Location: Lisbon, Portugal
mike mccabe wrote:
Presumably Steve your model is 'large' scale? At 112 pounds not includng postage I think it is fair to say this is the reason the majority of 1:700 scale modellers won't go to the trouble of buying as fitted plans!


I agree completely! Given the experience I have now with my HMS York (on this particular class and topic) I can say that the 1/700 modelers expend much already to achieve the best of what they can out from a model and having in the end a small but wonderful model. With York, apart from the cost of the Samek model herself, the amount of money expended on extras (resin parts from WEM, plenty of photo-etch, sets, "evil" Morskie book, etc etc) and with all the scratch-built parts I've done for her and the documentation I gather with the help of some of the lads here on the board I am quite happy with my results. In no way I would spend such amount of money that the "as fitted" official plans ask for just to build and improve a 1/700 model. If it was entirely scratch I admit I would consider the option and in fact I am waiting for 1/40 plans of the Vouga class Portuguese destroyers from the Portuguese Navy Museum Archives to build a 1/700 model out of it or perhaps something bigger.

_________________
"Build few and build fast,
Each one better than the last"
John Fisher


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 7:34 am 
My apologies.


Laurence Batchelor wrote:
Steve wartime additions to plans are rare indeed, they just never had the time to keep updating the plans in wartime.
Sometimes the dockyards did draw some modifications, but you usually can only get to see the full wartime additions from clear photographs.

Dear old WR to my knowledge you can no longer order half size!
They only do you full-size copies in black-and-white or for even more expense they can do colour again full-size!
Your going by what was available in the 1970s and not today's copying I'm afraid.

Please excuse my incorrect terminology I merely meant order the sheet or sheets with the decks given in a birds-eye view.
Not being a draftsman myself please escuse if I don't use the correct terminology. :big_grin:
Please also spell my name correctly :heh:

In-terms of photos, the Japanese aerial photo's of her being sunk are like this, you can make out very little!

Image
Image
Image

On a brighter note this is a good view of her catapult area:-

Image


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 9:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:20 am
Posts: 1374
Location: Warwickshire, England
Here's an example if one was to enquire for plans for Illustrious from the NMM (note the scales and the prices!)
Also they have 1936/37 sheets, 1940 sheets and 1946 sheets for her:-

1 Rig - port profile 1940 NPN4628 1:192 £16.92
2 Rig - starboard profile 1940 NPN4629 1:192 £16.92
3 Profile 1946 NPA4173 1:192 £16.92
4 Bridges 1946 NPA4174 1:192 £16.92
5 Flight/upp & lwr gall dks 1946 NPA4175 1:192 £16.92
6 Hangar/upp & main dks 1946 NP A4176 1:192 £16.92
7 Lower & platform dk/hold 1946 NP A4177 1:192 £16.92
8 Sections 1946 NPA4178 1:192 £16.92
9 Lines plan 1937 NPB4155 ADR612 1:96 £16.92
10 Lines plan 1936 NPB4136 ADR610 1:96 £16.92
11 Arr. Armour flight deck NPB413 7 1:48 £16.92
12 Rig (class) NPB4138 1:192 £16.92
13 Displacement & Body plan NPB4141 ADR610 1:48 £16.92
14 Profile 1936 NPB4142 ADR611 1:96 £16.92
15 Flight Dk & Bridges 1936 NPB4143 ADR611 1:96 £16.92
16 Lower & Dpp Gall Decks 1936 NPB4144 ADR6 1:96 £16.92
17 Hangar & Dpp Deck 1936 NPB4145 ADR611 1:96 £16.92
18 Main & Lower Deck 1936 NPB4146 ADR611 1:96 £16.92
19 Platform Dk & Hold 1936 NPB4147 ADR611 1:96 £16.92
20 Sections 1936 NPB4148 ADR611 1:96 £16.92
21 Armour & Protection 1936 NPB4149 ADR611 1:192 £16.92
22 Rig 1936 NPB4150 ADR611 1:192 £16.92
23 Midship section 1936 ADR611 1:24 £16.92
24 Set thro fward magazine 1936 1:24 £16.92
25 Set aft about 142 1936 1:24 £16.92
26 Set fward in way of 4.5" gun supports 1:24 £16.92
27 Rig (revised) 1937 NPB4173 1:192 £16.92

So if one was to order the lot thats around £450! plus a research and handling fee of £11.75 and say about £8 postage in a tube in the UK.
More if registered airmail, thats a lot of wonga folks!

As we discussed above its best to cherry pick whats needed. For large-scale modelling any sheets concentrating on internal features can be ignored.
Of course depending on what year the modeller wanted to depict Illustrious in the above example would determine which sheets they would only buy.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 9:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 11:52 am
Posts: 176
Location: Tampa, Florida, USA
mike mccabe wrote:
Presumably Steve your model is 'large' scale? At 112 pounds not includng postage I think it is fair to say this is the reason the majority of 1:700 scale modellers won't go to the trouble of buying as fitted plans!


Its 1/192 Mike. And I (and my wallet) would have been quite happy to be doing without them myself, until wr pointed out some errors in the Ough plans I was using.

_________________
Steve Sobieralski
Tampa Bay Ship Model Society


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 370 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 19  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Phil R and 32 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