The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Mon Jul 22, 2019 6:15 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 179 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Mar 15, 2015 7:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 5:49 pm
Posts: 1219
Location: Troutdale, OR
Looks good to me!

_________________
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 Mar 15, 2015 8:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:32 pm
Posts: 404
Thanks!
I'm doing a small revision to the whistle piping. It sits too far aft and intersects the funnel rain guard, so it needs to be move a few milimeters forward. I'm doing that this evening and tomorrow. I had hoped to have the funnel totally done and actually ordered this weekend, but then after inspecting some photos it looks like the piping needs to be moved forward and the whistles moved upwards a bot to make room for the little sheet metal connectors between the whistles and the funnel cap.

Bob


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Mar 20, 2015 11:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:32 pm
Posts: 404
A quick question, did the Sims funnel sit atop little "feet?" Did the the funnel trunking go straight into the main deck, or was there a small foot raised slightly at the main deck level that the trunking sat atop?

Thanks all,

Bob


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Mar 20, 2015 6:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:32 pm
Posts: 404
Here's the latest, deckhouse and funnel (pending the "feet" answer), hopefully properly scaled and all. Please excuse the missing funnel cap; its there, but the conversion (IGS to JPG) ghosted it out. Does this look okay? If so, I'll freeze the funnel design and move on to the after deckhouse after a day or two off to de-stress. The funnel innards were hard! The innards at the top of the funnel were deliberately made thicker to ensure printablity. Otherwise, they would have been too thin to print, so they are somewhat out of scale but that's done deliberately. As the technology improves, hopefully compromises like these won't be necessary.

Any suggestions welcome, and thank you for looking.

Bob

Image
Image
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Mar 21, 2015 12:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:32 pm
Posts: 404
Okay, major issue time, here. Devin Poore was good enough to check the scaling on the parts (THANK YOU!) And reports that everything looks good but for one issue: the after deckhouse is a bit too long by about the length of the torpedo tube mount. Now, here’s the issue: I’m pretty sure I transferred the dimensions accurately from the Sims plans that I obtained from the Floating Drydock. My CAD part is only 1.5 mm, give or take, off in length from the plans when scaled to 1/350th. Yet, it doesn’t match a broadside photo of Hughes taken later in the war.

So... Was the midships torpedo deckhouse static in size? Did they alter and change it, thus changing the position of the after torpedo mount fore and aft? I’m wondering if they did based upon these photos:

1. Sims: http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/0540902.jpg . Note the main deck mounting of the after torpedo tubes.

2. Sims: http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/0540910.jpg . Note that the after torpedo tube mount has been moved up.

3. Hughes: http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/0541009.jpg . No after mount at all.

4. Hughes: http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/0541002.jpg . After mount on the main deck, a la Sims.

5. Hughes: http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/pix2/0541019.jpg . No after mount at all.

5. Hughes, later in 1943: http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/pix2/0541020.jpg . Note that the midships deckhouse looks to have been extended aft. There is no way that a torpedo tube mount would have fit there on the main deck level at this time, like it did before the war. There isn’t enough room.

So, to my Mark I eyeball, this indicates a fairly wide variance from the plans. Now, the issue: What should I do? The midships deckhouse represents the deckhouse as derived from the Floating Drydock plans, which are themselves copies of official plans. However, they may represent what was intended, not what was actually built. Any recommendations on what I should do to the midships deckhouse part? Should it be redesigned, and if so, to what standard? Hughes definitely had a shorter midships deckhouse later in the war, as Devin’s analysis shows. But, what was it like early in the war, say 1942, which is the time period that my Sims/Hughes conversion is meant to represent? Should I stick with the Floating Drydock plans or deviate?

Bob


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:29 pm
Posts: 1767
You have to understand what the photos are actually showing. As designed, the Sims class had 3 sets of TT and 5 5" guns, arranged like the Mahan's. But they proved too top-heavy. It took some time to decide how to proceed and in the interim, both after TT sets and the #3 5" gun (between the boats) were removed. Eventually it was decided to restore the #3 gun and delete one set of TT, remodeling the midships deckhouse to place the #2 TT set at its after end where it displaced the 5" practice loader. The loader was relocated to the main deck between the deckhouses and the boats lowered to the main deck. The remodeling of the deckhouse required relocation of the vent intakes and one of the engine room access hatches, and building the cylindrical base for the TT. Early war, the #3 gun was removed to increase the AA. This basic deckhouse config remained unchanged until Mustin was given the 1945 anti-Kamikaze upgrade and all TT were removed.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Mar 21, 2015 2:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:32 pm
Posts: 404
C&R 300301, notated as corrected to July 19, 1941, is what I’m using.

You’re absolutely right about the evolution of the weapons fit. It makes you wonder why no one could figure out that the topweight issues plaguing prewar classes would continue as long as they kept trying to cram as many weapons, boats and as much top hamper as possible into a moderately sized ship.

Measuring the blueprints, the deckhouse is about 116 mm long in 1/96th scale from the leading edge of the forward torpedo tube mount/base to the trailing edge of the after torpedo tube mount/base, in profile. In plan view, the length is 117.5, probably the result of “stretching” and scale distortion from the printing and reproduction process. Those measurements were taken using digital calipers, so even I couldn’t screw it up! Using a scale factor of .2742857, that yields a 1/350th scale length of 31.817 mm using the profile measurement, and 32.228 using the plan view measurement. The CAD deckhouse measures 32.93 mm over the same length, probably the result of a small measurement error when I measured the plans for the first time, and a mil or so is easily corrected. In other words, close enough, and conforming to the plans. How then, did the deckhouse wind up so off compared to Devin’s analysis? I can only think that the plans don’t match the ship (unless I didn't commit some incredibly stupid math mess up, which is possible!).

Quote:
This basic deckhouse config remained unchanged until Mustin was given the 1945 anti-Kamikaze upgrade and all TT were removed.


Respectfully, I disagree. Sims and Hughes were the only two units of the class built in the same yard. Were they perhaps built or refitted to a slightly different plan? Since the two (and, apparently the others) were built with the two deck level torpedo tube mounts, the after torpedo tube deckhouse cylinder wasn’t there originally; it was added to the deckhouse later to address the movement of those torpedo tubes, so the deckhouse did change. So, where precisely was it placed? How far aft did it go? Where the official C&R plans show it, or where Devin’s analysis shows it? I suspect that’s what the issue is: where did that after cylinder actually go fore and aft, and when?

Image
Image
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Mar 21, 2015 4:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:29 pm
Posts: 1767
"This basic deckhouse config remained unchanged until Mustin was given the 1945 anti-Kamikaze upgrade and all TT were removed."

If you put this statement back in the context in which I had it, I meant that after the initial AA upgrades, the basic deckhouse config remained unchanged. Earlier in my post, I specifically stated that the after end of the midships deckhouse was extensively altered when the TT were relocated. As built, the after end of the deckhouse, in the center, had an opening similar to the one in the port side for engineering space access hatches. After the reconfiguration, this access recess was open to the port side of the new base for the TT. As built, there was a third mushroom vent atop the deckhouse at the aft end to port of the centerline. After the reconfig, that was replaced by two vent intakes in the sides of the deckhouse, one in each aft corner. But after that major change, the deckhouse remained largely in that config until Mustin had her anti-Kamikaze upgrade.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Mar 21, 2015 5:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:32 pm
Posts: 404
Gotcha, I missed that line, sorry.

Bob


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Mar 21, 2015 9:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2005 8:19 am
Posts: 171
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Bob,
Since no one has answered your "foot" question. From studying the plans I have there was a trunk section that protruded vertically from the deck by roughly 10" and had a flange at the top that the base of the stack bolted to. Looks like a bolt head about every 3"-4" on the flange; and the flange looks to be about 3" sticking out around the perimeter of each of the trunks.

Hope this helps,
Bruce

_________________
Bruce
OSC USN-Ret
Image

Currently on the building ways:
1/144 USS San Francisco CA-38
1/144 USS Stevens DD-479
1/144 USS Cook Inlet AVP-36
1/350 USS Hughes DD-410


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Mar 21, 2015 9:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:32 pm
Posts: 404
Thank you! Super description, thanks.

Bob


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 10:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:32 pm
Posts: 404
Shapeways is rolling EXTREME Frosted Detail, so it might, just might, be capable of printing railings in 1/350th. No PE! That would be superb! So, two questions come up regarding the Sims and similar DDs:

1. What were the railing specs? How tall were they, their widths, spacings, etc., if anyone knows?

2. What did the gear in the aft steering station look like? I've gotten the spray shield there CADded up complete with a small pipe rail around its top, but what did the gear behind it look like? A pelorus, wheel, compass stand, what? And, in what configuration? Any photos? I have drawings of most of the hardware that would likely be there care of a Floating Drydock DE plan book, I just need to know the details and the configuration.

3. Does anyone have any Dec., 1941, photos of the after face of Hughes' or Sims' after deckhouse? They were refitted at that time and that's the configuration they would have been in through Sims' loss at Coral Sea and until Hughes was refitted in July, 1942. Most photos seem to have been taken from overhead and forward, so the details of that the after face looked like and its details is speculative. I'd like to add proper and accurate details.

Many thanks,

Bob

PS. A small update the other day on the Virtual Ship Modeling thread regarding the Sims conversion, if you're so inclined.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2015 5:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3282
I'm on the road. Give me a couple of days to look for photos.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:32 pm
Posts: 404
Thank you! As always, you're the DD knowledge man!

Bob


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2015 6:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3282
Bob,

I'll try to provide some answers.

1) Railing Specs. I can't be of much help. I have some info for FLETCHERS but next to none on SIMS class. Stanchions used were "standard" types ... lots of types for all kinds of locations aboard the ships. "IN GENERAL" it looks like the deck edge stanchions were ABOUT 3.5-ft tall and stanchions on inboard deckhouses were ABOUT 3-ft tall. But, there were exceptions all over the place.

2) Aft Con Station. As best I know, there was only a compass and communications equipment with the engine room and emergency steering below decks. This is as good a place as any to mention that DEPENDING on when ... timeframe ... AND WHICH sub-group of SIMS class destroyers you are modeling, the aft con station was located in various places and had slightly different configurations.

When the war started "officially" for the USA on 7 December 1941, the SIMS class appears to have been in a minimum of THREE Configurations. The nine units heading for the Pacific from the Atlantic Fleet were from one DesRon unit, but they were quickly updated with revised layouts and had 20-mm guns installed in place of 50-cal MGs. But, they were divided into two groups based on which yard they were modified at;

Norfolk Navy Yard group retained a small deckhouse atop the aft main deck deckhouse. The aft con station was atop this small deckhouse at the far AFT edge.

DD-409 SIMS
DD-410 HUGHES
DD-414 RUSSELL
DD-415 O'BRIEN
DD-416 WALKE

Charleston Navy Yard group did away with the small deckhouse and installed the aft con station at the FORWARD edge of the aft main deck deckhouse.

DD-411 ANDERSON
DD-412 HAMMANN
DD-413 MUSTIN
DD-417 MORRIS

Then there were three units assigned to different DesRon that remained in the Atlantic. I don't know at this time what configurations these three had and when and for HOW long.

DD-418 ROE
DD-419 WAINWRIGHT
DD-420 BUCK

You have asked about the SIMS group, I don't know if that is your solo focus or not for your CAD design. The two groups in the Pacific stayed pretty much in the same configurations until after the Battle of Midway. After which, modifications varied for almost ALL of the surviving units until the installation of two twin 40-mm mounts "sort" of standardized everything ... sort of. The variations depended on when and where top-hamper was removed and in general two 20-mm guns were added.

I don't have any image looking directly at the aft con station equipment for ANY of the Norfolk Group. Here is a view from forward looking at the location. Also here is a 1945 overhead view looking at the aft con station on MUSTIN in 1945. Without any other info to go on, this should be representative of these stations.

Attachment:
RussellAftConStation.jpg
RussellAftConStation.jpg [ 146.5 KiB | Viewed 1288 times ]


Attachment:
MustinAftConStation-1945.jpg
MustinAftConStation-1945.jpg [ 139.18 KiB | Viewed 1288 times ]


3) View of the aft end of the aft deckhouse. Here is about as good as I can get. The 54 mount kind of gets in the way. :smallsmile:

Attachment:
OBrienAftDeckhouse.jpg
OBrienAftDeckhouse.jpg [ 109.42 KiB | Viewed 1288 times ]


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2015 10:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:32 pm
Posts: 404
THANK YOU!! I replied yesterday but apparently I messed something up as the reply didn't go through. You are super! Thank you, that tells me everything I need to know.

The conversion will be for Hughes/Sims from their December/1941, refits through Coral Sea and Midway. after that, I may alter the basic CAD model to do a 1942/43 Russell. I have these weird thoughts of doing a Mustin with the anti-Kamikaze refit, but I won't commit to it for fear of not following through and then disappointing people who may want one.

Bob

PS. Here's the latest pending working on the front and steering station. The splinter shields have been extended and are now in their final locations; odd how the walkway through the shielding is off center, but that's what the photos show.

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 09, 2015 9:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 11:27 am
Posts: 201
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Awesome drawings

But where is this going. Are you contemplating a plastic kit out of these?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 09, 2015 10:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:32 pm
Posts: 404
Its going to be a conversion set for the Dragon Benson, 3D printed. Anyway, I'll get as close as I can with the funnel, the two deckhouses, and maybe the side bulwarks. They look different to my eyes than do the Benson's. Other little details will be up to the modeler. The thing is, it'll be expensive printed via Shapeways, but to get the tiny details it will sort of have to be. I'm doing this for a friend and because I've wanted a Sims for a long time, and I don't see a mainstream manufacturer releasing one.

Bob


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 17, 2015 2:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:32 pm
Posts: 404
Okay, I'm finishing up some small details and such. Shapeways is having a 10% off deal through the 20th so I'd like to order the test pieces by then. So...

What about deck camber? This has me stumped. The Dragon main deck certainly features deck camber so I'm guessing the conversion should have it, too. The assembly plan has the modeler filling in any deck depressions or mounting holes and then placing the deckhouses atop the kit main deck. Since the kit deck has camber, I want the deckhouses to fit properly, so they need camber, but how much?

Thanks,

Bob


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3282
The easiest way would be to use one of the DML kits parts to make a pattern of the deck camber. The bottom of any conversion parts need to be made to mate to the camber of the deck below. Kit manufacturers can plan parts layouts so that there is minimum "complex" mating surfaces. So conversion parts need to factor how the base kit is laid out. I have not actually looked at the deck areas on these BENSON-GLEAVES kits and compared to a SIMS class unit to comment on specific modifications needed. AKA, what if any changes are going to be needed to the kit's deck to model a SIMS class unit?

The majority of the differences between the SIMS class and BENSON-GLEAVES class is in the midships area and are quite different.

In most cases, there is camber on the main deck and if there is a forecastle like on the SIMS-BENSON-GLEAVES classes, that deck will also have camber because they see weather and seas to the greatest extent and need to drain the water off. On FLETCHER's, the decks above those levels didn't have camber or was not noticeable.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 179 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 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 5 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