The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Tue Nov 20, 2018 7:09 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 467 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Sep 10, 2016 10:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 9:25 am
Posts: 2140
Location: Los Angeles and Houston
Question about the Nagara:

Attachment:
Nagara Bridge '30 Annotated.jpg
Nagara Bridge '30 Annotated.jpg [ 157.38 KiB | Viewed 1827 times ]


The image includes two annotations: An oval and a rectangle.

The oval looks to be highlighting (calling to attention) what appears to be a splinter shield on the back of the upper platform of the Nagara.

Is that indeed what this is?

Because that certainly doesn't look like Canvas covered railing back there (it is higher than the railing, for one, and it appears to be darker than the canvas (as well as solid) for another.

Any thoughts on this?

The Rectangle encloses what looks to be two ladders (at the top left of the rectangle... But where are they going if those are ladders?

It also appears to surround what looks like a housing that is supporting the rangefinder on the roof that extends down two levels, and extends beyond the aft bulkhead of the bridge tower.

Is that what I am seeing?

I am trying to finalize the models and patterns for a 3D printed structure for the bridge (for any Nagara-class, just add different roof or platforms for the different classes), and Photo Etch details to go with it (windows, platforms, mast structures (and mast and yardarms).

But I am having trouble with those structures.

Also, does anyone have images of underneath those platforms.

I have only one, and it shows a grid structure of supporting beams. I am wondering if they would be worth making additional PE components for the supports, or if a simple etched-in pattern on the platform will be sufficient.

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 Sep 11, 2016 6:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:38 am
Posts: 1275
I cannot speak with authority on the ship, but the Flyhawk set had a railing there not a splintershield. The item in the rectangle spears to my eye to be rigging.

_________________
Gabriel
Current Builds:
Fujimi Hiryu 1/350
Trumpeter San Francisco 1/350
Dutch Harbor PBY 1/350

Gallery


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2016 10:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 9:25 am
Posts: 2140
Location: Los Angeles and Houston
Whether Flyhawk had a railing there or not is good to know, but the photo seems to show what looks like a splinter shield.

And in the Rectangle, the ladder, or what looks to be a ladder, is behind the "Rigging" (I can see the lines running up from the deck).

The "Ladders" are underneath the canvas canopy on the upper.

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: Tue Sep 13, 2016 3:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:56 am
Posts: 6558
Location: New York City
I believe there is a bulwark or splinter shield around that position, though what the purpose is I do not know. Some other views below.

Quote:
The Rectangle encloses what looks to be two ladders (at the top left of the rectangle... But where are they going if those are ladders?


There are ladders between decks. The Abukuma pic shows something similar. I have some plans that outline these as well and must dig those up.

Quote:
It also appears to surround what looks like a housing that is supporting the rangefinder on the roof that extends down two levels, and extends beyond the aft bulkhead of the bridge tower.


Definitely the upper, compass deck. Not sure about a lower deck. Could be, looking at the Abukuma photo. But, her rangefinder is larger than Nagara's, 6m vs. 4.5m.

Quote:
Also, does anyone have images of underneath those platforms.


Not I. Love to see yours.


Attachments:
Nagara at Shanghai, 1937, taken from stern.jpg
Nagara at Shanghai, 1937, taken from stern.jpg [ 167.66 KiB | Viewed 1720 times ]
Nagara at Shanghai, 1937, from stern, crop.jpg
Nagara at Shanghai, 1937, from stern, crop.jpg [ 179.5 KiB | Viewed 1720 times ]
position crop.jpg
position crop.jpg [ 199.75 KiB | Viewed 1720 times ]
Abukuma bridge rear, Oct 1941.jpg
Abukuma bridge rear, Oct 1941.jpg [ 92.65 KiB | Viewed 1720 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2016 3:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:56 am
Posts: 6558
Location: New York City
one other view of that position on Nagara.


Attachments:
Nagara at Shanghai, 1937 crop.jpg
Nagara at Shanghai, 1937 crop.jpg [ 120.37 KiB | Viewed 1717 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 9:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 9:25 am
Posts: 2140
Location: Los Angeles and Houston
Thank you Dan.

The rear of the Upper Platform on the Nagara clearly shows a platform that is raised about 12" to 18" above the platform, and sticks out in a sort of /⁻\ shape (although obviously wider and shallower than my pitiful ascii text illustration can provide).

I also just noticed something about the aft end of the Radio House on the Second Platform.

It has a bevel that also is about 12" to 18" above the platform.

From both the profile view, and the aft views you have graciously provided, the line of the platform deck is below the bevel edge on the aft bulkhead of that housing. And the bevel continues as a solid enclosure all the way down to the base of the platform supports.

Which means that I YET AGAIN need to re-create the platforms on my 3D model, and for the PE parts (The 3D model is just to provide a simulated test-fitting for the PE parts on the 3D Printed structure - Autodesk Inventor can import the drawing, and then approximate tolerances on it given the size and materials designated). But it also means a much more simplistic shape to the platforms, which look to have much squarer backs on them that the drawings I have of the ship (showing rounded aft curves to the platform decks).

But did the Nagara get any major refits or rebuilds between the 1937 photos here, and 1942 that might have eliminated that raised platform and splinter shielding on the aft of the upper platform on the bridge?

What about the other ships in the class?

Are there any photos of the aft of their bridges that would show a difference?

Oh!

And what about the ladders and the housing below the rangefinder on the bridge I asked about earlier?

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: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:56 am
Posts: 6558
Location: New York City
Quote:
But did the Nagara get any major refits or rebuilds between the 1937 photos here, and 1942 that might have eliminated that raised platform and splinter shielding on the aft of the upper platform on the bridge?


Well, none that I'm aware of, or is listed in L & W. Such a change would be considered minor, IMHO, and not be documented.

Quote:
What about the other ships in the class? Are there any photos of the aft of their bridges that would show a difference?


I haven't seen any on any of the sisters. Not that many shots from the rear of these that are clear, anyway.

Quote:
And what about the ladders and the housing below the rangefinder on the bridge I asked about earlier?


On the top deck (compass deck), given the angle of sight, I believe we are actually looking at a portion of the deck, between two perimeter lines. A ladder in that spot would lead to nowhere. Access to the foretop above is via a vertical ladder attached to the mast foreleg. I think we are seeing something similar below as well. Access ladder to the decks are placed further aft on each deck.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 7:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 9:25 am
Posts: 2140
Location: Los Angeles and Houston
I hate having to post another post below the one above, but I want to get the topics separate.

• Hatches in the Bridge (under the platforms).

On the Middle Platform, I can see a hatch on the port side of the platform, to the inside of the bridge.

Was this the only hatch on that level?

What about the lower platform? Where was the hatch into the bridge structure, given that there does not appear to be a ladder from the lowest platform to the middle (indicating that the ladder is inside the superstructure)?

What about on the main deck? Were there any hatches into the Bridge below the lowest platform? Or immediately into the deckhouse on which this lowest platform rests?

• Yardarms and Starfish.

I seem to recall that during that the Nagara-class had all but one yardarm (above the Starfish) removed during the refits in the late-30s (during which time the pair of Twin AA guns were installed on the front platform)

Would that have been the upper, shorter yardarm that was retained, given that rigging tended to be strung between this yardarm and the yardarm on the aft mast?

As for the Starfish, there is an image of this on an earlier page of this thread that seems to show that the Starfish had no actual "platform" on the front portion of the starfish (only the aft was covered with a platform), and that the forward structure just consisted of a pair support gussets for each of the arms of the Starfish.

I am trying to figure out how this would be best modeled, since it would require some very thin arms arranged in a hexagonal (or octagonal) pattern around the masts.

I am trying to also figure out how the upper mast was attached to the lower tripod masts.

Any help, please?

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: Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:56 am
Posts: 6558
Location: New York City
Quote:
• Hatches in the Bridge (under the platforms).


This plan excerpt for Abukuma is the only one that I have for any of the Flt 2 ships that gives you an idea of the access ways between decks. Not sure that there were any hatches above the main deck, just openings.

Quote:
• Yardarms and Starfish.


I've got the illustration of Tama's foretop from the GPS cruiser volume plus these shots of Natori's foretop. While the Tama's structure above the starfish is different, the starfish itself is not. Natori's foretop was identical to that of Nagara.

As far as the yardarm goes, my belief is that it was an all new yardarm whose length was halfway between the two that were removed.


Attachments:
Abukuma plan rt, 4-20-1942.jpg
Abukuma plan rt, 4-20-1942.jpg [ 189.52 KiB | Viewed 1523 times ]
Tama upper foremast GPS cruiser vol.jpg
Tama upper foremast GPS cruiser vol.jpg [ 187.08 KiB | Viewed 1523 times ]
Natori bridge 1936-37.jpg
Natori bridge 1936-37.jpg [ 155.57 KiB | Viewed 1523 times ]
Natori bridge, King George V drydock, Singapore, April, 1943 - Fukui JNVI vol 3 -bridge crop.jpg
Natori bridge, King George V drydock, Singapore, April, 1943 - Fukui JNVI vol 3 -bridge crop.jpg [ 182.68 KiB | Viewed 1523 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2016 7:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:15 am
Posts: 538
Location: England
How does the new tool Fujimi Isuzu compare to the Tamiya kit? All I really know is that there is 2 Isuzu's in the box, which I find a bit strange!

thanks
Mike


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 11:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:56 am
Posts: 6558
Location: New York City
I don't have the kit, so I can't say. From what I see, I do like how the Fujimi kit eliminates the need to fill in the forward torpedo well, and eliminates the two piece main deck. Maybe someone who has built it can chime in?

2 kits per box - no clue. They seem to suggest two versions with minor fit changes.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 11:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:15 am
Posts: 538
Location: England
Thanks Dan, yes I hope someone who has the kit can answer. I'm trying to work out whether to keep the Tamiya kit (and see what etch I can use for it) or whether the Fujimi kit is that much better (plus it has matching etch).

thanks
Mike


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 8:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:15 am
Posts: 538
Location: England
I've got a couple of further questions. Are the single light AA guns on Nagara (circa 1944) 25mm or 13mm guns? Also Tamiya's Kinu has a floatplane I'm not too familiar with, I think it's a Laura or Hank but can anyone confirm what it is and when it was carried?

thanks
Mike


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 8:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 9:25 am
Posts: 2140
Location: Los Angeles and Houston
Question about the Masts.

Specifically the Foremast.

Were all three legs the same diameter?

I cannot tell.

In some photos, it looks as if the central column is thicker than the aft two for the Foremast. I cannot tell for the Mainmast, but that question would apply there as well.

I am having an annoying time trying to create the starfish for the Nagara Bridge (in 3D modeling - so that I can extract dimensions for the Photo-Etch and for the 3D Printed Structures).

And I think that it might be because I have all three mast legs as the same diameter, when the aft two might be slightly smaller (although that could be annoying as hell in terms of creating the legs, as currently the central Pillar is only .015", and any smaller would be freakishly tiny).

Any larger and the Mast Legs just look freaking ginormous.

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: Fri Sep 23, 2016 12:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:56 am
Posts: 6558
Location: New York City
Quote:
Were all three legs the same diameter?


It's a good question. The main leg is a little thicker than the trailing legs. There are no measurements that I know of. Best evidence are photos taken close to abeam of the bridge, original fit, with less obstructive views. Though taken far later, the Abukuma photo also gives a reasonable view, I think.


Attachments:
Nagara bridge circa 1921.jpg
Nagara bridge circa 1921.jpg [ 183.49 KiB | Viewed 1384 times ]
Kinu bridge as built.jpg
Kinu bridge as built.jpg [ 190.96 KiB | Viewed 1384 times ]
Abukuma bridge, 12-6-41.jpg
Abukuma bridge, 12-6-41.jpg [ 174.76 KiB | Viewed 1384 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Sep 24, 2016 9:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 9:25 am
Posts: 2140
Location: Los Angeles and Houston
Well...

That is both annoying news and exciting news.

Having the posts as different diameters means that the starfish will be easier to model.

But it also means that (in scale) it will be harder to build (even with brass).

The aft posts will need to be around .0125" - .015", which means the central post will need to be around .02", which is rather large for that post, Ideally, "In scale" (1/700) they would be more like .015" for the central post, and .01" for the after posts.

But.... The never ending pursuit of scale versus buildability....


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 Sep 25, 2016 10:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:56 am
Posts: 6558
Location: New York City
I think everything is a bit thicker than that. IMHO, those measurements are more appropriate for a DD. I would go with 0.03" and 0.025". Of course, I can't prove it.

To Mike, by 1944, the single are 25mm.


I believe the float plane was a Laura.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2016 2:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 9:25 am
Posts: 2140
Location: Los Angeles and Houston
Dan K wrote:
I think everything is a bit thicker than that. IMHO, those measurements are more appropriate for a DD. I would go with 0.03" and 0.025". Of course, I can't prove it.

To Mike, by 1944, the single are 25mm.


I believe the float plane was a Laura.



I just realized that I was dealing with Radii, and not diameter (I was just transcribing what I remembered entering in CAD).

And I am pretty sure that I have it as .03125" for the forward mast, and .025" for the aft. I need to check that, as it has been bugging me why the Starfish has been so wonky (It is slightly out of scale, even for PE, because it is so small in 1/700).

I am so sick of making the rear platforms on this model it is driving me nuts.

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: Thu Nov 03, 2016 10:44 am 
This is Redoctober27 here.. I have forgotten my password for like forever but... I'm thinking about getting Aoshima's IJN Oyodos 1/700 1944 kit. My question is which Photo-Etch set is the best for the kit. The first is Fivestars PE sets http://m.ebay.com/itm?itemId=261701793384. And the second is AKAs PE set http://m.ebay.com/itm?itemId=182236381922. The big difference is that there is Anti-skid decks on the fore bridge and foremast on the AKA set and on the 5star set there is Linoleum with brass strips. Does anyone know which is correct? Maybe Dan K could help me here??


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2016 9:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:56 am
Posts: 6558
Location: New York City
Quote:
I have forgotten my password for like forever


Well, Dominic, that'll teach you to forego this site at your peril. :smallsmile:


As to your question, I would go with the linoleum. There's no photographic evidence for Oyodo, but that was the general practice.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 467 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 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