The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Wed Jan 23, 2019 3:19 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 168 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 12:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:29 pm
Posts: 1742
Off the top of my head, I can give three differences between CAG1 and CAG2, but they are somewhat time related. First, as completed, Boston had 6 twin 3" mounts. Canberra lacked the two at the main deck level aft of the after 5" mounts. Second, Boston and Canberra were completed with different missile directors. In both of these differences, Boston was eventually matched to Canberra. The third difference is the helo platform you already mentioned. Boston didn't have one. (And, some of the earliest photos of Boston show the bridge decks as not glassed in. That didn't last long.)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 1:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 3:12 pm
Posts: 112
Location: Spotsylvania, Va. U.S.A.
Dick J wrote:
Off the top of my head, I can give three differences between CAG1 and CAG2, but they are somewhat time related. First, as completed, Boston had 6 twin 3" mounts. Canberra lacked the two at the main deck level aft of the after 5" mounts. Second, Boston and Canberra were completed with different missile directors. In both of these differences, Boston was eventually matched to Canberra. The third difference is the helo platform you already mentioned. Boston didn't have one. (And, some of the earliest photos of Boston show the bridge decks as not glassed in. That didn't last long.)


Thanks for the quick reply! Is the Boston model here from the time when both ships looked a like? --to anyone reading this post, if know from when-to-when they looked like twins please let us know--

As for the helo pad, we interested in it whereas, we wanted to fly -more likely crash- our mini RC CH47 between the two ships. We decided to make removable pads. With functional terriers, sound, smoke, trainable 8" turrets & missal launchers, and rotating radars,real -but tiny lol- search lights and signal lamp -BTW: I put them on my CB-1 and it looked really cool at night. Oh, one more thingie, I'd like to have my radars turn or rock at the proper rpm etc. When I'm sure as to which type and Mk I ask here. Thanks again.

_________________
Build em big


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: info need on radars
PostPosted: Fri Feb 20, 2015 10:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 3:12 pm
Posts: 112
Location: Spotsylvania, Va. U.S.A.
Whereas we found a good source for small motors, we want to activate -rotate or scan up/down- the different radars our large scale RC models CAG1 & CAG2. I hope we have former radar guy here. The fine model in the file/photo below was not my build, but it is the right ship with the radars in question. Yes, I'm being picky, but if I can make them rotate as they should, why not?

http://www.nulspace.com/hobbies/boston/ ... 70513c.jpg

Thanks
Francis T

_________________
Build em big


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2015 4:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 12:01 am
Posts: 1057
Location: Corvallis, Oregon, USA
Francis,

The model in your picture isn't very accurate for the missile tracking radars. It looks like the base and yoke are a single piece.

See this location for a description of how the tracking antenna parts worked for the AN/SPG-49 missile tracking radar used with Talos. The Terrier missile tracking radars used the same mechanical parts for rotation about bearing and elevation - both systems were in development at the same time and the Navy didn't know that either would work, so they designed as many parts as possible to be the same in both systems.

http://www.okieboat.com/SPG-49%20description.html

Note: The electronics were totally different for Talos and Terrier, and the guts of the Terrier tracking radars were entirely different from the AN/SPG-49.

Phil

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2015 4:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 3:12 pm
Posts: 112
Location: Spotsylvania, Va. U.S.A.
Like topic asks. I'm about to order some and want to get the right plank spacing for the USS Boston. the scale is 1/8"= 1'
Does anyone know a another supplier for model ship deck besides Northeastern?
Thanks
Francis

_________________
Build em big


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2015 7:21 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 10585
Location: Calgary, AB/Surrey, B.C., Canada
Francis: when posting a question or response about a ship that already has a topic thread, please use the "New Reply" button while viewing the existing thread and not the "New Topic". This helps to keep the board more organized. Thanks!

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2015 11:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 12:01 am
Posts: 1057
Location: Corvallis, Oregon, USA
Francis,

I am curious. What were the dimensions of the planking on the CAGs?

On the CLGs the planks were 4"x2" and no shorter than 18 feet (of course in places they were cut shorter to fit). They were laminated with 1" teak over 1" Douglas fir, with the teak on top.

The caulked gap between planks was 3/16" wide.

The margin planks were 2.5"x9" and trimmed to 2" where they joined the deck planking. The 2.5" side fit against bulkheads, hatch coamings, etc. so water would flow away from the joint with the metal. Margin planks were not to be cut less than 6" wide.

Phil

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2015 11:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 3:12 pm
Posts: 112
Location: Spotsylvania, Va. U.S.A.
DrPR wrote:
Francis,

I am curious. What were the dimensions of the planking on the CAGs?

On the CLGs the planks were 4"x2" and no shorter than 18 feet (of course in places they were cut shorter to fit). They were laminated with 1" teak over 1" Douglas fir, with the teak on top.

The caulked gap between planks was 3/16" wide.

The margin planks were 2.5"x9" and trimmed to 2" where they joined the deck planking. The 2.5" side fit against bulkheads, hatch coamings, etc. so water would flow away from the joint with the metal. Margin planks were not to be cut less than 6" wide.

Phil

Thanks, I feel ok with using decking sheets with 1/16" scoring, whereas the ship i'm building is a 1/96 and thus 1/16 = 6".

_________________
Build em big


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Mar 01, 2015 9:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 3:12 pm
Posts: 112
Location: Spotsylvania, Va. U.S.A.
DrPR wrote:
Francis,

The model in your picture isn't very accurate for the missile tracking radars. It looks like the base and yoke are a single piece.

See this location for a description of how the tracking antenna parts worked for the AN/SPG-49 missile tracking radar used with Talos. The Terrier missile tracking radars used the same mechanical parts for rotation about bearing and elevation - both systems were in development at the same time and the Navy didn't know that either would work, so they designed as many parts as possible to be the same in both systems.

http://www.okieboat.com/SPG-49%20description.html

Note: The electronics were totally different for Talos and Terrier, and the guts of the Terrier tracking radars were entirely different from the AN/SPG-49.

Phil

THANKS GREAT INFO!
Aside from the SPGs train with the launchers, did scan up/down or left/right?

_________________
Build em big


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Mar 01, 2015 7:04 pm 
The SPG-49s did rotate around the horizontal axis to adjust the elevation. They also had the ability to oscillate back and forth around the vertical axis. The Talos tracking antennas operated independently in bearing and elevation from the launcher. The missiles were fired and guided to a predicted intercept point ahead of the target.

Phil


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2015 10:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 3:12 pm
Posts: 112
Location: Spotsylvania, Va. U.S.A.
Guest wrote:
The SPG-49s did rotate around the horizontal axis to adjust the elevation. They also had the ability to oscillate back and forth around the vertical axis. The Talos tracking antennas operated independently in bearing and elevation from the launcher. The missiles were fired and guided to a predicted intercept point ahead of the target.

Phil

If you or someone else can identify the 4 radars in the photo below and advise as to the RPMs and type scan, such as oscillated up/dn as the rotated it would be a big help.
Thanks

http://www.nulspace.com/hobbies/boston/ ... 21813c.jpg

_________________
Build em big


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2015 10:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 3:55 pm
Posts: 3125
Location: Hawaii
Best guess from me is:

Fore to aft:
SPS-8
CXRX
SPS-43

SPS-10 under the -8 and I "think" a SPS-12 hiding under it. Need a better photo to be sure. If I'm remembering correctly she had some spare 2D air search sets on board in the early years.

Mk-13 on the Mk-34 director and Mk-25 on the Mk-37 director. Mk-56 director below the SPS-43. SPQ-5 Terrier Illuminators.

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 3:12 pm
Posts: 112
Location: Spotsylvania, Va. U.S.A.
Cliffy B wrote:
Best guess from me is:

Fore to aft:
SPS-8
CXRX
SPS-43

SPS-10 under the -8 and I "think" a SPS-12 hiding under it. Need a better photo to be sure. If I'm remembering correctly she had some spare 2D air search sets on board in the early years.

Mk-13 on the Mk-34 director and Mk-25 on the Mk-37 director. Mk-56 director below the SPS-43. SPQ-5 Terrier Illuminators.


Thanks and I found this site with list of the different types with data and photos, but no mention of RPM go fig! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/SPS-48
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_radars

_________________
Build em big


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 03, 2015 6:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 12:01 am
Posts: 1057
Location: Corvallis, Oregon, USA
The AN/SPS-10 had a nominal rotation or 16 revolutions per minute +/- 1 RPM. The AN/SPS-10B had a nominal rotation of 15 RPM. It did not tilt up/down. Antennas rotated clockwise.

The Mk 16 radar antenna (part of the Mk 25 radar) on the Mk 37 director did not rotate - it turned with the whole director. It could be tilted up/down but this was necessary only if a target flew close in and over the ship.

Directors could rotate clockwise and counterclockwise. The antennas could be tilted up/down a bit, but only to track very close targets at high altitudes. Normally they pointed directly at targets and didn't move much at all. The fastest movement was when initiating a target search and rotating from the stowed centerline position to point in the direction of the target. However, the missile directors were often pointed straight up during testing so the radiated energy wouldn't illuminate other ships/aircraft or pose a hazard to personnel on the ship.

Phil

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 03, 2015 10:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 3:12 pm
Posts: 112
Location: Spotsylvania, Va. U.S.A.
DrPR wrote:
The AN/SPS-10 had a nominal rotation or 16 revolutions per minute +/- 1 RPM. The AN/SPS-10B had a nominal rotation of 15 RPM. It did not tilt up/down. Antennas rotated clockwise.

The Mk 16 radar antenna (part of the Mk 25 radar) on the Mk 37 director did not rotate - it turned with the whole director. It could be tilted up/down but this was necessary only if a target flew close in and over the ship.

Directors could rotate clockwise and counterclockwise. The antennas could be tilted up/down a bit, but only to track very close targets at high altitudes. Normally they pointed directly at targets and didn't move much at all. The fastest movement was when initiating a target search and rotating from the stowed centerline position to point in the direction of the target. However, the missile directors were often pointed straight up during testing so the radiated energy wouldn't illuminate other ships/aircraft or pose a hazard to personnel on the ship.

Phil

Thanks, that's what I wanted to know!!!!!

_________________
Build em big


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 16, 2015 9:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 3:12 pm
Posts: 112
Location: Spotsylvania, Va. U.S.A.
Whereas I built the hull buck for my 1/96 scale Boston CAG-1 per drawings from the floating dry-dock and found that do not match the splendid model covered here. For one the bow has a bulbous bottom as can clearly be seen in the photo below. Was it changed at some point as depicted in the model, should I change mine?
http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/069/0406909.jpg

Also the Main gun turrets do not match those on the model. whereas the the front corners not break sharply, but smoothly and into a long curve as seen the files below. Were these change also or are the turrets wrong for the ship?
http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/067/04010816.jpg
http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/069/04010176.jpg
http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/069/04010107.jpg

With respect to the bow, I suppose it could have been changed, especially after say, damage. As for the main battery, I doubt such a major modification would have been made. I'm not trying to rain in anyone's parade, I just want to build mine right.

_________________
Build em big


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 16, 2015 10:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 2040
they were built with the bulbous bottom so modify your hull. that 1st picture of the turret is not of cag1 or 2 as the forward superstructure is wrong for those 2 heavy cruisers so that picture is from 1 of the missile converted Cleveland class light cruisers. the Baltimore heavy cruisers had sharp corners on the main turrets not rounded.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 16, 2015 10:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 12:01 am
Posts: 1057
Location: Corvallis, Oregon, USA
The picture is the Topeka CLG-8.

The three dual 5"/38 mounts mean it was either the Topeka CLG-8 or the Galveston CLG-3. The other CLGs had only one 5"/38 mount. The Topeka had a tripod fore mast as in the photo. The Galveston had a four-tube forward radar tower.

Phil

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 16, 2015 11:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 3:12 pm
Posts: 112
Location: Spotsylvania, Va. U.S.A.
Thanks guys. My hull has the bulbous bottom, so I'm OK there and was not ready for the main guns yet. Those Navy photos were supposed to be the Boston!

_________________
Build em big


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: more progress
PostPosted: Thu Mar 26, 2015 12:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 3:12 pm
Posts: 112
Location: Spotsylvania, Va. U.S.A.
RandyM wrote:
I finished the main and secondary gun armament (8" and 5" turrets), plus some directors and some additional inner railing/ladders. I'm also comparing the 3"/50 gun mounts from both Yankee Modelworks (kit-supplied - on the after mount) and Veteran (on the fore mount). No detail paint yet... just gallons and gallons of haze grey.

Image

Image

Image

One (of many) thing I've not been able to figure out yet - the forward 5" mount on Boston had what I believe are shell ejection chutes on the back of the turret (you can just see one of them in the last image above, and clearly see them on the prototype in the image below), while the other four mounts did not. Why?

Image

It's an old post, thus you likely have your answer about the chutes. If not, could be simply because the port and starboard 5" DPs are less likely to eject shell casings at the crew than the forward 5". Whereas, the fwd 5" can fire off either beam and thus send casing everywhere. I probably wrong, but that's my take in it.

Question,where are the red/green navigation lights on the Boston? I can't find them on the model. Is that black areabelow and to the left of the ship's ribbons on the wing of the upper enclosed bridge deck the starboard light? Checkout the photo of the Boston's superstructure above. Whereas my 1/96 RC CAG-1 is getting search lights +, I need to wire them in now. Thanks

_________________
Build em big


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 168 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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