The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Sat Sep 21, 2019 7:58 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 317 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Mar 17, 2016 11:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 12:01 am
Posts: 1093
Location: Corvallis, Oregon, USA
Looking at the Google Maps image of Noumea I suspect the two photos were taken from the positions indicated in the photo below.

Position 1 would be from the peninsula across Dumbea bay from the anchorage. Rick's post on the 16th.

A clue is the small island at the end of the Ducos Peninsula that is visible from viewpoint 1, more or less lined up with Ducos Peninsula with the Great Road beyond. The battleship on the left (USS Washington) is moored in Dumbea Bay near the small island and outside the Great Road and the battleship on the right (USS South Dakota) appears to be moored near the end of Isle Nou in Dumbea Bay. The carrier (USS Enterprise) is moored in the Great road about even with the long peninsula beyond the three-pronged peninsula (from this angle the three prongs appear as just one headland).

Position 2 is the aerial photo from Rick's post on the 17th.

A clue to view 2 is the three-pronged peninsula on the north side of the Great Road. It is visible the aerial photo and there is nothing else around like it. Also the hook at the end of Isle Nou and the pointed head midway down the island are visible on the right side of the Great Road.

Phil


Attachments:
Noumea.jpg
Noumea.jpg [ 128.6 KiB | Viewed 2135 times ]

_________________
A collision at sea will ruin your entire day. Aristotle
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Mar 18, 2016 5:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 9:25 am
Posts: 2162
Location: Los Angeles and Houston
The Island at the right in the Photo is Isle Nou.

The built-up-area along it's length, opposite it is Noumea Harbor.

The image is taken looking approximately East (roughly E-SE), and you can see the shadows from the Washington pointing almost directly to the East, indicating that the sun was nearly behind the photographer (who is in an aircraft pretty high up). That is where you want the sun, behind you.

Being nearly on the Equator, the sun would fallow an almost east-west path regardless of the season (I could ask my brother, who knows how to Navigate, how to determine where the sun would be given the Latitude - I can't get my head to work right now, or I could probably figure that out).

But that Island to the Right IS Isle Nou.

Your arrow should be pointing slightly more to the East, and moved down just a little bit over the tip of that point on Noumea itself to the Left of the image.



MB

_________________
OMG LOOK! A signature

Working on:


1/700 (All Fall 1942):
HIJMS Nagara
HIJMS Aoba & Kinugasa
USS San Francisco
USS Helena
USS St. Louis
USS Laffey & Farenholt
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 4 - 7
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 13 - 16


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Mar 19, 2016 1:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 267
Location: NAZARETH PA
Gentlemen

Good finds on the maps and the analysis of them. I was focused on the body of water N of the acquariam which looked way too small to me. Looks like my guess on a lot of post war changes was confirmed.

Rick I did not search either 80G or 19 LCM vs Dunbea Bay although I too saw it mentioned before my last trip to NARA. i did search both vs Noumea and Espiritu Santo. If you have time and it matches your searches a quick check of the indexes vs Dunbea Bay just might be productive on your next visit there.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN
fredb1048@aol.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2016 7:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 267
Location: NAZARETH PA
ATTENTION 1/350 ATLANTA CLASS MODEL BUILDERS

I have no idea whether my periodic whining, sniveling, begging and pleading to ISW about the absence of a decent 1/350 Atlanta class model had any impact on the following news. Having built 5 of their Sims class DDs there is a slim chance I am one of their better customers but I have no idea whether that is correct or whether it is a factor.

In any event a few weeks ago I sent an email request for a single piece Atlanta hull if they could help me with the current BWN kit project which has a 4 piece hull, 2 upper and 2 lower. The top 2 went together fairly well the bottom 2 are a disaster. I specifically asked them for a single piece hull if possible or a 2 piece YKM type if not.

Turns out my request arrived during the final stages of preparation to release an entire 1/350 Atlanta class model. The kit is a brand new kit not a re design of prior editions. It has a single piece hull that includes the superstructure units. I have a photo of the preliminary design of the hull if anyone wants to see it let me know, if they agree to its release I will email you the photo. Suffice to say it looks much better than the BWN/YKM equivalents. Jon told me today during a phone conversation the kit should be out within a few months and that something should be on their web site on this topic fairly soon. I do not know which if any of the 4 ships their kit is intended to represent.

I asked for 2 hulls, one for the BWN kit in progress and one for another YKM kit I have sitting here. They should arrive within a few weeks. When they do I will try to post photos of them.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN
fredb1048@aol.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2016 10:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 267
Location: NAZARETH PA
The ISW hulls have arrived.

Having direct experience with both BWN/YKM hulls, my opinion for what it is worth their hull is light years better than prior kits. It is a single piece with most but not all of the superstructure units attached to the hull. Approx. the top 20% are separate parts for the superstructure units. There is very little flash and excess resin anywhere on them. I have not prepared either hull for painting yet but my guess is one can be sanded and the little excess resin removed in 15-20 minutes tops. The anchor holes are correctly located unlike the prior kits. No big deal unless you are trying to duplicate the Juneau camo scheme. The armor belt is different from prior models and seems to more closely match photos of the ships. The bow seems to be a close match for photos also unlike the prior kits. Overall for anyone who prefers to build a full hull model of one of these ships if the rest of the kit matches the hull, and I suspect it will, this will be by far the best ISW kit I have seen. Then again I have only seen 3 of them. I do not know if they will offer a water line version, I would not want to attempt to saw this large and fairly heavy piece of resin.

Highly recommended for anyone else with an interest in the Atlanta class.

I will try to post photos of a hull tomorrow night once I am back from Mosquitocon 25. If I have my usual luck trying to post a photo and it is not on by this time tomorrow email me direct and I will send you photos.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN
fredb1048@aol.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Apr 02, 2016 11:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 267
Location: NAZARETH PA
I just tried to post a photo of the ISW Atlanta class hull, got a message it was too big.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN
fredb1048@aol.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Apr 03, 2016 12:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 5:49 pm
Posts: 1220
Location: Troutdale, OR
Images Courtesy of Fred Branyan;

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

Looks like an update to the old Gulfstream kit if my memory serves me,

Matt

_________________
In the yards right now:
1/350 USS Portland CA-33 1942
1/350 Trumpeter Texas with a twist


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Apr 03, 2016 1:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 9:25 am
Posts: 2162
Location: Los Angeles and Houston
1/700 or 1/350???

Or some other scale?

I would like a waterline Atlanta (that didn't require carving, cutting, and adding to).

MB

_________________
OMG LOOK! A signature

Working on:


1/700 (All Fall 1942):
HIJMS Nagara
HIJMS Aoba & Kinugasa
USS San Francisco
USS Helena
USS St. Louis
USS Laffey & Farenholt
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 4 - 7
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 13 - 16


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Apr 03, 2016 8:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 11:19 pm
Posts: 453
Location: San Diego
The hull in the photographs has some improvements over BWN kit, the such as the bow knuckle. How do we alert the supplier to correct inaccuracies? The bow bulwark needs to extend aft to end above the hawsepipe, and needs the ports for mooring lines and the paravane chains. How did the supplier get those wrong?
I too prefer a waterline kit.
What are the kit hull lengths overall and at the waterline? The BWN hull length overall equals 1/350 of the actual waterline length.
Which ship in which year does this kit represent?
I'm not trying to be a curmudgeon. I'm jaded by the failure of the industry ever to provide even one accurate kit of the Atlanta/Oakland class in either 1/350 or 1/700.

_________________
If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, [atmospheric] CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm.
Dr James Hansen, NASA, 2008.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Apr 03, 2016 9:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 6650
Location: In the hills of North Jersey
This is 1/350.

ISW will "short pour" a hull so it's approximately waterline for you - you'll have to sand it or cut it the rest of the way. I actually find - if you have access to a band saw - to get the full hull kit and then just cut it down to where you want it.

_________________
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: Mon Apr 04, 2016 4:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 12:01 am
Posts: 1093
Location: Corvallis, Oregon, USA
Fred,

It is extremely easy to post photos on the forum. There is a size limit of 1200x1200 pixels and a file size of no more than 150 Kbytes.

1. Open Microsoft Paint - it is supplied with every version of Windows.

2. Open the drawing in Paint - or Copy/Paste it into Paint. The size of the image in pixels appears below the image.

3. In the "Home" tab click the "Resize" icon. In the "Resize and Skew" dialog select the "Pixel" option, be sure the "Maintain Aspect Ratio" option is checked, and enter a new width or height. I have found a width of 800-900 pixels works fine.

4. Save the picture as a JPEG file type. Save it in a location known to you so you can find it again!

5. After saving the file the file size in bytes will appear below the picture. It should be under 150 KB.

6. If the file size is too large either reduce the pixel dimensions as in step 3 above or use the "Select" box and "Crop" tools to cut away unnecessary parts of the image (the picture does not have to be 3x2 horizontal x vertical) and save the file again.

7. Start a post in the Forum, and at the bottom you will see the "Filename" section. Click "Browse" and locate your drawing. Select it and click the "Open" button. The Forum will tell you if the file is accepted. If not, reduce the file size more as in steps 1-4 above.

That's all there is to it.

Phil

_________________
A collision at sea will ruin your entire day. Aristotle


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2016 11:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 11:19 pm
Posts: 453
Location: San Diego
In the photos the armor belt is too thick and too long. It shielded the main propulsion spaces. The upper edge traced the second deck. The mold designer can get accurate plans from The Floating Drydock. If the hull has to extend below the waterline, then molding a trace of the waterline would be used-friendly.

_________________
If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, [atmospheric] CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm.
Dr James Hansen, NASA, 2008.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2016 2:31 pm 
Michael Potter wrote:
In the photos the armor belt is too thick and too long. It shielded the main propulsion spaces. The upper edge traced the second deck. The mold designer can get accurate plans from The Floating Drydock. If the hull has to extend below the waterline, then molding a trace of the waterline would be used-friendly.



You mean these?

Image

Jon Warneke
Commander Models, Inc.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2016 3:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 267
Location: NAZARETH PA
Phil thanks for the info on posting photos. Matt thanks for your info on POSTIMG. I will attempt one or both the next time I try to put one here. Unless the wife of CV 6 org's Arnold Olson finds a CL 52 photo in his collection that is not too likely to happen.

Model builders I have a few photos here of my test shot of the starboard Juneau hull pattern on the BWN upper hull. If it will be of any help to you let me know I will email them to you. The masks were done by hand using the 6/1/42 photo, using Tamiya wide masking tape and drawing the pattern on the tape. I would score it about 80-90 for accuracy.

As for the commentary above about the bulwark being too small and armor belt being too thick on the ISW hull keep in mind I have the item in my hands not photos. I also have probably every CL 51 class photo that is on line. As for as I am concerned the armor belt is the perfect width/thickness. Compared to the actual ship photos it might be a tad too thin for thickness but I do not plan on getting my microscope or calipers or ruler out to confirm that. It is close enough to perfection to satisfy my anal standards for perfection. By contrast the BWN/YKM armor belts are at least 2X as thick and do not follow the contour of the main deck as does the belt on the ISW kit. They are garbage compared to this ISW hull. As for the bulwark, comparing the ISW hull I have here to actual photos that also looks perfect. For anyone who disagrees, that is why the Force gave us super glue/plastic sheet and scrap PE.

As you can see from the post directly above, no need to worry about getting in touch with the manufacturer. I alerted him to the alleged malfunctions, and I suspect he will visit the site periodically.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN
fredb1048@aol.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2016 8:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 267
Location: NAZARETH PA
As for the armor belt being too thick, suggest you take a look at the photos of the San Diego launching on navsource. To my eyeballs the thickness on the ISW hull is an exact duplicate. The view in both launching photos shows the thickness, a little easier to detect in the red area below the water line. Also shows them curved up to follow the taper of the main deck exactly as portrayed on the ISW hull.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN
fredb1048@aol.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2016 11:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 11:19 pm
Posts: 453
Location: San Diego
Fred, I'm impressed and interested that you may introduce the first accurate kit of these ships in any scale in styrene or resin. The actual armor belt was 3.75" at its thickest.

More power to you. I'll buy at least one.

_________________
If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, [atmospheric] CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm.
Dr James Hansen, NASA, 2008.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2016 10:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 11:40 pm
Posts: 557
Location: California
This is a problem when style meets fact, or drawings taken as gospel. While I appreciate the efforts of our talented draftsmen, folks should understand that creating accurate drawings is not unlike building a model. Indeed, back in the day of drafting machine and triangle, drawings were more tedious for me than building. I can see what Michael is talking about here...

Image

Likewise,the armor belt would scale out to an ever so slight shade over .010" thick. The models belt looks considerably heavier than that.

To some degree, I think folks have lost perspective. Compared to 1/700, 1/350 seems large, but in the "scale" of things, it is miniscule. So as much as you would like to have these details emphasized, they do look out of scale to many of us. Look along the waterline, you can barely make out the armor belt. Not a very overwhelming feature.

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: Tue Apr 05, 2016 11:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3292
Photography can be tricky and yes the armor belt is VERY thin in scale, almost not noticeable in 1/700 scale, but at times it can be quite visible.

Image

Other times it is hardly noticeable even on the same ship in a photo taken only a month later.

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2016 5:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 267
Location: NAZARETH PA
I expect to have the hull painted in camo within 2-4 weeks. Then the deck. Then the superstructure.

I do not do WIPs.

Anyone desiring progress photos to include perhaps a close range photo of the allegedly too thick belt contact me direct via email. Unless I get very lucky in the search for fall 42 photos I will probably not be on this site very often for awhile.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN
fredb1048@aol.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2016 7:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 11:40 pm
Posts: 557
Location: California
Rick,
Actually, the main purpose of the photo was to address Michael's previous post where he mentioned ..."The bow bulwark needs to extend aft to end above the hawsepipe". The armor belt comment was sort of secondary. And my comments were only meant to temper the remark from Jon and Fred. There is no intention here to start a war, they are simply observations from personal experience and preference.

That being said, the hull casting looks very nice, much better than I have ever received. I am used to pits galore, missing corners, half cast shields etc. If I could be assured of an equal casting, I would be tempted to order. But it's always been like Charlie Brown and the football ...even when they send a "replacement".

Image

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  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 317 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 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