The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Sun Jul 21, 2019 10:33 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 207 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jan 29, 2016 9:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 6:01 pm
Posts: 143
Location: South Carolina
Dick J wrote:
Steve wrote:
1. What are the locations for the 1.1" and 20 mm AA mounts (and were there any located at the stern where the 40 mm mounts were added in the '43 refit)? There is a reference to 13 - 20mm mounts in Warship Pictorial #10. In the pictures I see only 4 - 1.1" mounts and nowhere near the 13 referenced 20mm mounts.

The 1.1's were mounted abeam the after end of the bridge at the level of turret 2, and between the upper and lower groups of 5" guns, at the level of the upper guns.


The 1.1" between the front four and rear four 5" guns were at an intermediate level relative to the decks that the 5" guns were on, not at the level of the upper (forward) 5" guns. The second and third graphics from Model Monkey are correct. I'm pretty sure I have a hard copy photo showing this clearly, but haven't made a digital copy so could not post, but it is still evident in this June 1942 view of Portland if you zoom in on the relevant area. I just wanted to emphasize this, since some Indy kits have the 1.1" at exactly the same level as the four forward 5", and that is an error for 1942 Portland.


Attachments:
6-14-1942.jpg
6-14-1942.jpg [ 103.59 KiB | Viewed 2335 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 30, 2016 1:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:29 pm
Posts: 1767
I should probably have been a bit more precise on the 1.1 elevation. They were a little lower than the forward 5", but were definitely elevated above the after 5".


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 30, 2016 3:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3282
Here are a couple of images for reference of USS PORTLAND (CA-33) in early 1942. First one is a view of PORTLAND at MINY in the background of a photo for another ship dated 15 February 1942 (interesting that there aren't any photos from her MINY visit on Navsource, but it may have been only a short visit/repair). The second image is the same one posted earlier, but this one will be at a higher-res.

Image

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Feb 10, 2016 4:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 9:25 am
Posts: 2161
Location: Los Angeles and Houston
Jeff Sharp wrote:
Interesting deck detail on '41 Portland. Notice that the Navigation Bridge has teak decking but the flag bridge below it and the Range Finder deck above it both do not..
http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/c1f32958fcf0b36b_large

http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/bb3b69a54cb78c9f_large

http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/3668b2c7955557e0_large

http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/7a15726218d9bcf2_large

Also notice the color difference that the Flag and Range finder decks are compared to the 5-D bulkheads.
http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/77faf00ad987194f_large

Notice just below the left foot of the guy sitting in the lookout chair there is a support brace for the wind shield. Half of that brace is 5-D to match the shield and the other half is whatever color the deck is.
Any guesses what color the deck is?
http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/9ee39321d2d7fe59_large

And the teak decks get a fresh coat of blue paint.
http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/e2adfbdb33b02388_large

http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/9cb4880b1aedf43b_large

http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/a1785d81da532fb8_large

But the it didn't adhere too well.
http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/4070081911c5df41_large

http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/00f516fff5d5b79a_large


I cannot find the link, but I have read that they had both a Blue Paint and a Blue Stain for the decks.

Both tended to darken with age.

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: Wed Feb 10, 2016 10:48 pm 
Offline
Model Monkey
Model Monkey

Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 9:27 pm
Posts: 3250
Location: USA
Seeking accurate overall dimensions of the anchors. Any help is appreciated.

_________________
Have fun, Monkey around.

-Steve Larsen

Catalogs of over 2000 products for scale modelers, most in 3D-printed gray resin - https://www.model-monkey.com/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 2:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 12:01 am
Posts: 1078
Location: Corvallis, Oregon, USA
Any idea what the weight of the anchors was?

Phil

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 10:50 am 
Offline
Model Monkey
Model Monkey

Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 9:27 pm
Posts: 3250
Location: USA
DrPR wrote:
Any idea what the weight of the anchors was?

Phil

No clue. As you know, that would certainly help solve the problem of designing an accurate one. I'd like to design some anchors for CAs and CVs but am having trouble finding their dimensions and weights.

_________________
Have fun, Monkey around.

-Steve Larsen

Catalogs of over 2000 products for scale modelers, most in 3D-printed gray resin - https://www.model-monkey.com/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2016 2:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 12:01 am
Posts: 1078
Location: Corvallis, Oregon, USA
For reference the Clevelands had 13,000 pound Navy stockless bower anchors (Navy versions are slightly different from some commercial versions).

The Portland class and Cleveland class had the same displacement - 10,000 tons - so they may have used the same anchors.

The anchors may not have been exactly the same on similar ships, or both anchors may not have been the same on a given ship. While modeling the USS Oklahoma City CLG-5 I noticed that the two anchors were slightly different. I thought that was odd. Then while reading through the ship's histories I found that CL-91 had lost the starboard anchor and 25 fathoms of chain in the Delaware Bay in April 1945 on the first post-shakedown cruise. The Philadelphia Navy Yard sent a new one out on a barge.

Here is a drawing of a Navy stockless anchor. This is the type used on the Clevelands. For the 13,000 pound anchor:

A = 100"
B = 77-3/8"
C = 46-5/8"
D = 71-1/16"
E = 22"
F = 18-3/8"
G = 3-15/16"
H = 14-1/8"
J = 12-5/16"

The Floating Drydock has an excellent set of 22500 pound anchor drawings showing all dimensions and fluke cross sections, with a table of dimensions for all sizes of Navy anchors. It was done by a friend of mine, Alexy Burdin (his beautiful CAD model of the USS Slater DE-766 is what inspired me to put insane amounts of detail into my CAD model of the USS Oklahoma City CLG-5).

Phil


Attachments:
US Navy stockless anchor.jpg
US Navy stockless anchor.jpg [ 89.41 KiB | Viewed 2085 times ]

_________________
A collision at sea will ruin your entire day. Aristotle
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:36 am 
Offline
Model Monkey
Model Monkey

Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 9:27 pm
Posts: 3250
Location: USA
Brilliant, Phil!

I'll offer 13,000 lb. anchors, specified for Clevelands, and let the modeler decide if it is appropriate for their cruiser builds.

Your CAD design is "wicked cool".

_________________
Have fun, Monkey around.

-Steve Larsen

Catalogs of over 2000 products for scale modelers, most in 3D-printed gray resin - https://www.model-monkey.com/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Feb 14, 2016 4:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 9:25 am
Posts: 2161
Location: Los Angeles and Houston
On the Midship Portland, which has the forward Deckhouse too wide, how much of that would I have to narrow to get it correct?

I am debating whether I can get by with narrowing it by two deck plank widths on each side of the hull (which would be roughly 3mm - 4mm), leaving me just one line to scribe for the missing planking (something that is doable), OR whether I should just take it in to where I used to work to have the forward deckhouse milled off (along with .01" of the deck, as I have the Wooden Decks made for the conversion), and then buy the forward superstructure from Model Monkey to complete the kit (I may buy it anyway, since it looks to be easier than building the resin parts, and contains better detail).

But.... If I can get by with just filing down the forward deckhouse by 3-4mm, then I will do that.

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 Feb 14, 2016 10:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 6:01 pm
Posts: 143
Location: South Carolina
MatthewB wrote:
On the Midship Portland, which has the forward Deckhouse too wide, how much of that would I have to narrow to get it correct?

I am debating whether I can get by with narrowing it by two deck plank widths on each side of the hull (which would be roughly 3mm - 4mm), leaving me just one line to scribe for the missing planking (something that is doable), OR whether I should just take it in to where I used to work to have the forward deckhouse milled off (along with .01" of the deck, as I have the Wooden Decks made for the conversion), and then buy the forward superstructure from Model Monkey to complete the kit (I may buy it anyway, since it looks to be easier than building the resin parts, and contains better detail).

But.... If I can get by with just filing down the forward deckhouse by 3-4mm, then I will do that.

MB

See the April 2014 post with drawings of the two deck houses overlaid earlier in this thread.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 15, 2016 12:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 9:25 am
Posts: 2161
Location: Los Angeles and Houston
DavidK wrote:
MatthewB wrote:
On the Midship Portland, which has the forward Deckhouse too wide, how much of that would I have to narrow to get it correct?

I am debating whether I can get by with narrowing it by two deck plank widths on each side of the hull (which would be roughly 3mm - 4mm), leaving me just one line to scribe for the missing planking (something that is doable), OR whether I should just take it in to where I used to work to have the forward deckhouse milled off (along with .01" of the deck, as I have the Wooden Decks made for the conversion), and then buy the forward superstructure from Model Monkey to complete the kit (I may buy it anyway, since it looks to be easier than building the resin parts, and contains better detail).

But.... If I can get by with just filing down the forward deckhouse by 3-4mm, then I will do that.

MB

See the April 2014 post with drawings of the two deck houses overlaid earlier in this thread.



Thank you.

I suspected that this might have been discussed.

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 Feb 21, 2016 6:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 11:59 am
Posts: 656
With all the MM conversion parts in hand I have started to undertake the conversion. I will list, as I go along, what I find and if the work progresses as I have planned. My first goal is to have all parts modified and dry fit before I start actual model assembly.

1. Using the PM !942 drawings I had Staples rescale the 400 plan and elevation to 700 scale. This (for me) is a must for fixing the positioning of the aircraft handling and fore decks before I start cutting. The rescaled drawing is a "direct match" to the Tamiya kit.

2. I intend to work from the stern forward using the Tamiya hanger location as the "baseline" to position the aircraft handling deck. MM has indicated that this piece has some extra for trimming.

3. Once done, I will trim that deck to fit all directions except forward. Dry fitting only.

Comments and questions are welcome.

Steve


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2016 2:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 11:59 am
Posts: 656
As part of my planning for the Tamiya conversion (posted above) I have been unable to determine the extent of an aft cross deck bulkhead below of the aft 5" gun deck. There are no posted photos of this area that I have found nor does the MM part include a bulkhead. I suspect there is a limited but open area on both sides of the aft tower structure to allow access to facilities and storage below the 5" gun deck. Any help will be appreciated.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2016 8:52 pm 
Offline
Model Monkey
Model Monkey

Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 9:27 pm
Posts: 3250
Location: USA
Steve wrote:
As part of my planning for the Tamiya conversion (posted above) I have been unable to determine the extent of an aft cross deck bulkhead below of the aft 5" gun deck. There are no posted photos of this area that I have found nor does the MM part include a bulkhead. I suspect there is a limited but open area on both sides of the aft tower structure to allow access to facilities and storage below the 5" gun deck. Any help will be appreciated.

Steve, Really looking forward to your build! Best wishes to you on a challenging conversion project!

Yes, your suspicion is correct, that deck is open
under the AA deck for quite a distance.

You can see just how far forward in this pre-war photo taken before plating was added to cover the large opening in the shell (hull). Compare the position of the mostly hidden transverse bulkhead in question with the position of the 5"/25 guns above. By 1942, plating containing four portholes had been added covering the large opening but the small openings remain. The new plating's portholes appear to standard 12" diameter "airports". The original shell portholes forward of the new plating appear to be 16".
Attachment:
CA-33 1930s 08_06_005405.jpg
CA-33 1930s 08_06_005405.jpg [ 142.61 KiB | Viewed 1842 times ]


And some other photos that may help. Note that there is a perforated plate at the outer edge.


Attachments:
CA-33 1941.12.07 076797c5ef8f4407_comment.jpg
CA-33 1941.12.07 076797c5ef8f4407_comment.jpg [ 198.38 KiB | Viewed 1842 times ]
CA-33 1941.12.07 9449b4a22c42de51_small.jpg
CA-33 1941.12.07 9449b4a22c42de51_small.jpg [ 198.88 KiB | Viewed 1842 times ]

_________________
Have fun, Monkey around.

-Steve Larsen

Catalogs of over 2000 products for scale modelers, most in 3D-printed gray resin - https://www.model-monkey.com/
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2016 5:53 pm 
Progress so far:

1. The Tamiya fore deck, hull side plating and the aft deck have been trimmed for addition of MM parts. I need to do minor adjustments, fabricate several transverse bulkheads and do some minor modification to the Tamiya kit plastic parts to accept these parts. I will have completed all this work by the weekend and dry fit the major structures (except for the upper bridge assemblies). A prime coat is also needed to see the detail of these parts.

2. Observations:
a. The rescaled PM plan is a must for positioning the decks before cutting anything.
b. Steve Larsen's post cleared up the extent of the after cross deck bulkhead.
c. The Tamiya 5" platform decks help to accurately position the side plating that supports them.
d. The hull must be tack glued to the waterline plate so the fore deck and aircraft handling deck can be accurately trimmed.

3. Pictures:
Will attempt to post this weekend or if I fail, to email them to anyone interested.

Steve G.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2016 8:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 11:59 am
Posts: 656
http://i.imgur.com/HMytScd.jpg

Test photo maybe this time!

All MM components "rough" positioned for general fit except for bridge parts. Some primer applied for visibility (clear parts). Added the Tamiya 8" turrets for a better perspective. Currently need to fabricate several cross deck bulkheads to complete fit up. This is a very do-able conversion for old guys like me who only like to do OTB plastic.

Steve


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2016 9:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 5:41 pm
Posts: 602
Location: North Carolina, USA
Steve,

Good photo; you're off to a great start. Please consider posting in the WIP section; strongly suspect you'll have a large following. I have an old Matchbox kit that may now have some use!

Please keep posting.

Best Regards,

Mac

PS: Steve Larsen - your parts look awfully good.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 11, 2016 10:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:32 pm
Posts: 404
Okay, its finally time. I'm going to start the basic CAD design work for the prewar Indy bridges. My question is, what do you all suggest in way of a parts breakdown? Other than the bridges themselves, what else is mission critical to convert the Academy 1.350th Indy into her gorgeous 1930s light gray self? I'd like the conversion to be as cost effective and simple as possible to save the modeler on costs.

Sorry if this is the wrong forum to post this in, but I thought a thread on the Portlands would be the right place.

Many thanks for any suggestions.

Bob


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Apr 12, 2016 12:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 7:29 pm
Posts: 1144
Location: Tempe, Arizona
aptivaboy wrote:
Okay, its finally time. I'm going to start the basic CAD design work for the prewar Indy bridges. My question is, what do you all suggest in way of a parts breakdown? Other than the bridges themselves, what else is mission critical to convert the Academy 1.350th Indy into her gorgeous 1930s light gray self? I'd like the conversion to be as cost effective and simple as possible to save the modeler on costs.

Sorry if this is the wrong forum to post this in, but I thought a thread on the Portlands would be the right place.

Many thanks for any suggestions.

Bob


Any plans to offer that in 1/700 too? As far as parts break down, perhaps the way Steve (ModelMonkey) has done for his 1942 Portland offerings would be a good way to do it. Or since 1/350 is bigger perhaps do each deck level as a separate offering.

_________________
-Abram


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 207 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 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