The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Fri Oct 19, 2018 8:25 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 106 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2015 9:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 1:32 am
Posts: 410
Location: Peach State
Cliffy B - I have the TFW plans and Paul has outlined many of the drawbacks to those on his SLC thread. What I found when I started roughing out the hull was that if I sized the plans for length, the main deck at its widest point was the full width of the beam measurement, which didn't allow for the tumble home and additional width at the waterline. I scrapped the first hull when I discovered that and that I had accidentally put a Pit-Road kink on the starboard side amidship.

As much as I admire and respect Paul's work, I think the upturned bow on the hull in his photos is a bit too pronounced from the third keel block forward. That could simply be the result of the camera angle, but it looks a little "off" to me compared to photos that I've collected.

I'm going to resize the A.D. Baker drawing in the Friedman U.S. Cruisers book and see if the proportions are better. I think I also have a copy of the BGP taken from an old issue of Warship International, but I'd like to get a copy of your BGP, too, if it's not too much trouble.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2015 9:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 11:40 pm
Posts: 550
Location: California
Mike, I have overlayed the Floating Drydock with the A.D. Baker drawings from the Friedman book and they are a very good match for general outline and the profile ... my hull follows their profile EXACTLY. I think you're getting a distorted visual perspective from the photos, which always happens when you try and squeeze everything in using a bit of a wide angle lens...also, it is deceptive without some of the midship structures in place. My only beef with the FD plans are the hull cross-sections. I basically had to work with the deck outline and the profile ... to which my hull conforms. Hopefully you'll get lucky and find the full set of hull sections.

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: Wed Feb 11, 2015 1:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 2141
Location: New Orleans, LA
Here's a question: why in God's name is America's first true heavy cruiser so poorly represented in kit form? It isn't like the class didn't see combat.

_________________
- Chris


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 4:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 6404
Location: In the hills of North Jersey
PetrolGator wrote:
Here's a question: why in God's name is America's first true heavy cruiser so poorly represented in kit form? It isn't like the class didn't see combat.


This isn't the forum for this. If you want I'll move it to history and technology, but please lets not have this discussion here.

_________________
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: Wed Feb 11, 2015 6:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 1:32 am
Posts: 410
Location: Peach State
My apologies, Paul. I should have known you were too diligent in your work to miss something like that and should have kept my mouth shut. Sorry about that.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 7:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 11:40 pm
Posts: 550
Location: California
No offense taken Mike ... can't vouch for much on that hull, but I had to hang on to a little credibility :eyes_spinning:

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: Thu Feb 12, 2015 12:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 2141
Location: New Orleans, LA
I'm working on securing some better plans/pictures of the class. I'll let you know if I'm successful.

_________________
- Chris


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2015 2:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 9:25 am
Posts: 2127
Location: Los Angeles and Houston
PetrolGator wrote:
So.... anyone live in Maryland and is willing to make a trip to the Archives, scan some plans, and get compensated for their efforts?

http://research.archives.gov/description/7155288


If I can get the situation sorted out with my doctor, I am planning to make a trip to MD to get a loot at the plans for the Pensacola/Salt Lake City, as well as a couple of other ships, c. 1942.

This message seems to be from Feb, but I notice no one seems to have stepped up.

If I can get the plans with the hull-lines on them, then getting an accurate hull will be trivially easy. And detailed plans of the superstructure seems to be rather important given the errors I see listed in this thread.

But the earliest I would be able to make the trip would be early 2016.

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 Aug 20, 2015 10:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 12:01 am
Posts: 1036
Location: Corvallis, Oregon, USA
Matthew,

You would do me - and I suspect others - a great favor if you would report on your adventures at the National Archives.

I have looked on line and it seems there are no decent accommodations in College Park, Maryland, near the Archives. I guess staying at Dulles and using a rental car are the only options.

I have visited in Washington, DC, before, and it sucks! What a desolate hole in the ground! But at least the subways work - most of the time.

Phil

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2015 10:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 9:25 am
Posts: 2127
Location: Los Angeles and Houston
DrPR wrote:
Matthew,

You would do me - and I suspect others - a great favor if you would report on your adventures at the National Archives.

I have looked on line and it seems there are no decent accommodations in College Park, Maryland, near the Archives. I guess staying at Dulles and using a rental car are the only options.

I have visited in Washington, DC, before, and it sucks! What a desolate hole in the ground! But at least the subways work - most of the time.

Phil


The car is really the only thing preventing me from going now (getting a new doctor is also a slight hindrance, but not as big as the car thing).

I have a 14 year-old ticket in Texas (somewhere - I can't even find out freaking WHERE the ticket is from) that requires paying before I can renew my driver's license. If I could find out where the ticket is from, I would contest it (as I am pretty sure the cop is no longer with the dept.)

But... As soon as I get that taken care of, I will start to plan a trip.

I am fortunate to have friends who are academics who are familiar with working in the National Archives, and I am talking to them about preparing.

They said that I need to make sure to reserve a private research room (They said to check on costs) to use for a controlled environment in photographic materials ((allowing the use of a photographic plan camera mount)

And, I have learned that I should do some (well, rather a lot) of preliminary research on finding the:
►Record group
...►Entry name
......►Entry number
.........►Box number
............►Folder title/File number
...............►Location

Obviously, some of this will not be accessible until I get to the NARA site itself.

The Record Group seems to be accessible online.

And the Entry Name is within the Record Group (a giant xls file).

The Box Number -> Location looks to be sometimes within this Record Group.

I am still deciphering the Record Groups.

It would help to know where to even begin looking to find Blueprints, and Plans.

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 Aug 20, 2015 11:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 9:25 am
Posts: 2127
Location: Los Angeles and Houston
Would this be the Record Group I am looking for:

From Bureau of Ships

19.8.5 Records of the Shipbuilding Division

Textual Records: Records relating to ship design, 1890-1942. Specifications for materials, 1909-44. Tables of requirements relating to lend-lease materials, 1942-44. Records relating to fuel oil investigations, 1937-41. Patent infringement case files, 1929-42. Correspondence and subject files of the Technical Intelligence Liaison Sub-Section, Research and Standards Branch, 1945-52.

Architectural and Engineering Plans (7,425 items and 1,151 rolls of microfilm): Captured Japanese ship plans, 1932-47 (425 items). Plans of U.S. Navy vessels, 1908-59 (7,141 items and 1,150 rolls of microfilm), with index, 1908-48. Microfilm copy ("Roll 32516" of plans) and other data concerning U.S.S. Constellation, 1794- 1947 (1 roll). SEE ALSO 19.10.

Emphasis mine.

It says to also see 19.10, which I am working towards, slowly.

edit:

This also looks interesting (again, emphasis mine):

19.12 STILL PICTURES (GENERAL)
1898-1966

Photographs (5,987 images): U.S. Navy ships at Veracruz, Mexico (1914); Mexican refugees, and Mexican and American officials; ships on sea trials, in drydock, and fitting out; and U.S. Navy midshipmen, 1914-20 (VC, 120 images). Review of Atlantic Fleet, 1915 (BNR, 38 images). Motor buzzer transmitter, n.d. (MBT, 29 images). Ships of the British Royal Navy, 1941-45 (SB, 5,800 images).

Photographic Prints (165,221 images): Ship fittings, equipment, and interiors; model ships; tests and experiments; damage to ships; views of Boston and New York Navy Yards; and the navy exhibit at the 1926 Sesquicentennial International Exposition, Philadelphia, PA, 1902-39 (E, 4,200 images). Construction, launching, refitting, and sea trials of U.S. Navy vessels, 1902- 65 (LC, LCA, LCM; 157,625 images). Navy radio and communications illustrations and equipment, 1907-24 (RS, 1,550 images). Secretary of the Navy Josephus Daniels and bureau chiefs, 1917 (NBC, 10 images). Models and mockups of U.S. Navy ships, 1941-46 (MM, 1,200 images). Launching and commissioning of post-World War II surface ships and submarines, 1946-66 (NV, 500 images). U.S. and foreign naval vessels, 1898-1945 (NAO, 136 images).

Photographic Negatives (12 images): Alterations to the carrier U.S.S. Lexington (CV-2), 1942 (X).


It also occurred to me that I might take some of these photos and see what some of my photographic enhancement software might be able to do with them>

Smith Micro sells a photographic enhancement package, for instance, that can sharpen up details in older photos, and largely re-construct them from partial data, using pixel frequency decomposition to extract line, shade, and color data from an image. It can take several hours for some photographs, but I'd be willing to bet that somebody would foot the bill for the time.

Imagine all of those pictures of ships where we can't quite make out what sort of gun emplacement, or the structural details of a deckhouse, or splinter-shield...... And where suddenly the details are cleared up.


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 Aug 22, 2015 1:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 12:01 am
Posts: 1036
Location: Corvallis, Oregon, USA
Matthew,

Record Group 19 is where you will find ship plans. Some of these plans are on microfilm, but apparently they also have some blueprint sheets. I have obtained many reels of microfilm working over the Internet.

If you have a specific ship or class of ship you are interested in you should email the Archives (see the contact page) and inquire about it. Tell them you are interested in plans in record Group 19 and give the name of the chip or class.

Three things you should remember:

1. It is unlikely the Archivist that responds is a model ship builder, or even very familiar with ships and ship plans. SO you have to be very specific about what you are interested in and explain in detail. They can't read your mind.

2. You aren't the only person submitting a request - they get a lot of requests and there are few Archivists. Expect a delay of up to a month before you get a reply.

3. An Archivist is allowed to spend only a little time (30 minutes I have been told) on any request. If it takes longer than that to find the information you want you must hire a researcher or go there and search for yourself.

Having said that, I have gotten excellent help over the Internet. The Archivists I have worked with have given me the exact microfilm reel numbers for the blueprints of ships I have inquired about (the entire Cleveland class). They have provided me with lists of the ships' histories. Most importantly, they have provided me with exact instruction for ordering copies of each item. All this without ever leaving my home.

****

There are a few things you should know about ship plans on microfilm.

1. There are virtual "reels" and physical reels.

A ships plans will be listed as RG19 Reel XXXX - record Group 19 reel number XXXX. This will be a virtual reel, where "reel" just means a record number. Each virtual reel may actually contain one or more physical reels of microfilm. For example, the blueprints for the USS Cleveland are on virtual Reel 5537. In actuality there are 19 physical reels of microfilm containing 4630 blueprints.

For the entire Cleveland class there are four virtual reels, including changes made during WWII and plans from several shipyards. Each shipyard redrew some of the plans and made their own changes. All in all there are 36 physical reels of microfilm for the original Cleveland class ships. For the subsequent CLG conversions there are two more virtual reels with 19 physical reels. See this link for details:

http://www.okieboat.com/Microfilm%20notes.html

2. Each virtual reel contains an Index that is a list of plans. Each actual blueprint is a "Frame" and the Index lists the drawing name and Frame number. On the film the Frames are in numerical sequence (Frame 1 to Frame N). When there are more than one physical reel (almost all cases) each successive physical reel contains some part of the total Frames in numerical order. For example the first physical reel may contain Frames 1 through 194, the second reel contains Frame 195 - 382, the third reel Frames 383 - 597, an so on.

This Index is essential for locating any particular drawing. In older pre-WWI plans each physical reel contains an index of the plans on that reel. So to get a complete list of all drawings you must order all of the physical reels. During WWII they started making a separate Index reel that lists all drawings on all physical reels. You can order this Index reel to see all of the plans that are available. Unfortunately, the Index reel list doesn't tell which physical reel a particular Frame might be on.

3. Each Frame may actually contain several images on the film. For blueprint sheets the images cover the vertical height of the 36 inch high sheet. Some sheets were small enough to be captured in a single image. Others, like the complete deck plans, hull lines, etc. were quite long and required up to 6 or 7 images to photograph the entire sheet. So these Frames contain multiple images. To recreate a single drawing you may have to paste together multiple images in an image editing program.

For things like door lists, key lists, etc. the originals were typed pages and each page was photographed as a separate image. So each Frame is a single image.

The Index doesn't tell how many images are included in each Frame.

4. The RG19 drawings are from the Bureau of Ships (BUSHIPS) and contain drawings only of the ship's structure and the engineering plant. They do not include any of the Bureau of Ordnance (BUORD) drawings for weapons. The BUSHIPS drawings do contain things like armor plating and turret structure - everything needed to build the physical structure of the ship and get it launched.

Ordnance drawings are in two other Record Groups (if they exist).

5. Not all of a ship's blueprints are included in the Archive's records. Many of the Cleveland class blueprints are missing. Each existing blueprint contains a list of related drawings, and I have found that many of these referenced drawings are not included on the microfilm. In some cases essential drawings are missing. My guess is that more than half of the Cleveland class drawings were not copied and are lost.

Some of the images that are on the microfilm are badly exposed and unreadable. All images contain some photographic distortion, especially spherical distortion, that makes pasting multiple images together more difficult.

Some drawings were modified with time, so several versions of the same drawing may be available. So the first one you come across may not be what was actually used to build the ship.

The first ship of a class was designed in a particular shipyard. The drawings were made in pencil on paper. These were copied as blueprints in a crude WWII vintage copying machine. These blueprint copies were actually used at the construction sites. The microfilm images may be of the original drawings or of a blueprint. The original drawings produced clearer images on the microfilm. Some of the blueprint images are badly blurred.

When multiple yards built the same class of ship each yard would hand copy each original drawing from the original yard, using tracing velum overlaid on the original drawing. Then, in the new yards the drawings may have been modified. So each shipyard may have been using a different set of plans to build ships of the same class.

For example, in the Cleveland class I have found that each yard constructed a particular large conspicuous feature differently (the trash burner smoke pipe). The tops of the smoke pipes were constructed differently in different yards. These differences are very obvious in photographs if you pay attention. Very few modelers have noticed this, so many models are inaccurate.

6. Some of the drawings were just wrong! It was impossible to build the real three dimensional object using the plans on the two dimensional drawing sheet. I found several instances of this in the Cleveland class drawings - typically one pipe passing through another pipe. When this happened the shipbuilders improvised.

7. Most of the drawings are for internal plumbing, electrical wiring, lists of doors, keys, name plates, furniture, etc. Very few of the thousands of blueprints for the Clevelands actually contain information useful to the ship modeler.

8. After ships were commissioned they may have been modified, so the ships changed with time and those changes aren't shown in the original drawings. The drawings for these changes may not have been preserved.

And, of course, the crews on the ships often got out the torches and "fixed" problems in the original designs or added new features.

So you need to examine photos of the ship (or the real ship) to see how the thing was actually built.

Phil

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Aug 22, 2015 2:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 9:25 am
Posts: 2127
Location: Los Angeles and Houston
Phil, thanks for the Reply.

I have been learning where to find the Armaments (they are indeed in a separate Record Group, but I am currently away from home, and do not have the notes with me about where they are).

I am not worried about re-assembling the images. I have more image and photo manipulation software than I know what to do with, and hopefully can re-construct some of the more blurry images, as I have already mentioned (although not everything can be re-constructed, simple line drawings are usually easily recovered). I was/am already prepared to do a lot of reconstruction work.

For images, I have been tracking down wartime images and photos for the very purpose of seeing outward changes. The Office of Naval Intelligence seems to have many, as do other Dept.'s maintaining Record Groups. And many of these images might similarly be reconstructed either image reconstruction software (you would be amazed at the results).

I need to do some research on what has already been found so as not to overly repeat research.

But your response is very helpful. It is good to know that much is available by mail.

When I get back home, I will take a look at my notes to see if there are more specific questions you may be able to provide some advice regarding.

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 07, 2015 12:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 261
Location: NAZARETH PA
I will be using the 1/350 SLC kit to back date it to Pensacola at Santa Cruz in the near future.

Research has been ongoing for about a year.

By pure luck I found an incredibly clear crop of the ship off Hawaii in the summer of 42 at http://imgur.com/YIlxRwU. Using that photo plus the one Martin posted awhile ago I believe I have located all 20 MM guns. I have photos here on a word document that has arrows pointing to all of the guns.

If anyone needs this info please contact me I will email the photos to you.

Fred

_________________
FRED BRANYAN
fredb1048@aol.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Sep 08, 2015 12:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 9:25 am
Posts: 2127
Location: Los Angeles and Houston
FRED BRANYAN wrote:
I will be using the 1/350 SLC kit to back date it to Pensacola at Santa Cruz in the near future.

Research has been ongoing for about a year.

By pure luck I found an incredibly clear crop of the ship off Hawaii in the summer of 42 at http://imgur.com/YIlxRwU. Using that photo plus the one Martin posted awhile ago I believe I have located all 20 MM guns. I have photos here on a word document that has arrows pointing to all of the guns.

If anyone needs this info please contact me I will email the photos to you.

Fred


I am thinking that the Pensacola did not undergo much change between the Summer of '42 and the Late-Fall '42, when it fought in the Solomons. Would that be correct?

Also, I do not know why I did not think of this, but It might be easier to just get a 1/350 scale Waterline Pensacola, and scan the hull to get one for 1/700 Scale, and then work-up the Superstructure from the plans (since the Superstructure is vastly easier to model than the hull without having all of the hull lines to do a proper loft from).

I still would like to try to get to NARA next year to see what I can dig up on her and the SLC, though.

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 May 26, 2016 2:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 6404
Location: In the hills of North Jersey
SLC pre-war


Attachments:
File comment: 80G466151
SLC_80G466151.jpg
SLC_80G466151.jpg [ 4.83 MiB | Viewed 1469 times ]

_________________
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: Fri Jul 15, 2016 2:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:59 pm
Posts: 173
Location: Austin, TX
Hi all -

Trying to gather as much information as I can on this class, and most specifically the different mark and mods of directors on each.

It's my understanding that Mk.19 directors were fitted for 5" gunfire control, and later some of these were fitted with the Mk.4 "FD" sets common during the early part of the war. I then see these being replaced by Mk.33 (the big enclosed pedestal-mounted directors seen on some of the early DDs), some with Mk.4 FD radars and later with Mk.28 "dish" style antennas.

My knowledge fails me when it comes to the main battery gunfire control system (or lack thereof). It seems like Pensacola and SLC receive some sort of enclosed gun director on the foremast in 1941, which (as far as I can tell) later receives the standard Mk.3 Mod.2 "FC" oblong antenna that seems to be retrofitted to a lot of the pre-war combatants as a stop gap. Then the Pensacola's 1945 refit looks like it adds the Mk.35 enclosed/standalone directors for the main battery (earlier in this thread, someone mentions that they were removed from the Porter class DDs, presumably when those DDs had Mk.37 directors added).

My question is what was the mark/mod of the first enclosed director fitted on the foremast of both CA-24 and CA-25, and also what "system" was used before this?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 6:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:25 pm
Posts: 1333
Location: England
Are the any rumours, however slight, of any company considering doing this class in 1/700 injection molded?

_________________
Vlad


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 19, 2017 12:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 2279
Location: Copenhagen
There are rumours about a new 1/700 resin kit with a correct hull, which would be probably a better and more detailed kit compared to a plastic kit.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Apr 02, 2017 1:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 5:49 pm
Posts: 1162
Location: Troutdale, OR
A couple of shots of the Pensacola in Late 42 that I had not seen before.
Coming alongside the Big E just prior or after Santa Cruz
Image

a few days after she took a torpedo
Image

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 106 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 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