The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 6:16 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 82 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2014 8:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 11:25 am
Posts: 69
I'm working on the Combrig 1/700 Porter in early war fit and am hoping someone can tell me what sort of search radar, if any, she carried.

I've looked through all of the photos of each Porter class member in Navsource and I've checked out all the models in the gallery. None of the Porter photos show a radar for sure but that could easily be the work of censors. Some model builders chose SC and another SC-2. I can see SC or SC-1 and maybe an SG on Phelps from late November 1942 so it is possible.

Anyone know for sure?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2015 3:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:51 pm
Posts: 2853
Other than the Floating Drydock, are there good plansets of the pre-war Porter class destroyers?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2015 5:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2015 2:34 pm
Posts: 244
Location: GTA, ON
EJFoeth wrote:
Other than the Floating Drydock, are there good plansets of the pre-war Porter class destroyers?

There were 2 issues of Profile Morskie on Porter-class


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 07, 2015 3:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:51 pm
Posts: 2853
Thanks. Unfortunately I consider Profile Morski to be a very poor source that cannot be used as a reference for any serious build.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Aug 10, 2015 10:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:32 pm
Posts: 404
They're decent, depending upon the plan. However, in doing my Sims conversion I found a large number of little details that were incorrect on their plans, and enough small issues can eventually become very large issues. They're very good for general shapes but do lack finesse with the small details that we modelers will notice. I'd say use them for basic shapes, but rely on photos and actual Navy yard plans for the details.

Bob


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2015 11:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 8159
Location: New Jersey
Started adding links to Porter and Somers class builds in the gallery 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: Sat Sep 05, 2015 3:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:06 am
Posts: 3154
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Hi all,
Since Combrig's 1941-42 Porter seems extremely hard to find online, has anyone tried to convert any of the Niko Somers class DD kits to a Porter? This would mean scratch building a 2nd funnel out of styrene sheets. Has anyone here attempted this?

All the sources I've read seem to say the Somers class are merely repeats of the Porters, save for the fact they have just one funnel.

Last time I checked on Freetime, all the Combrig Porters were gone and hadn't been restocked for a while.

_________________
"Haijun" means "navy" in Mandarin Chinese.

"You have enemies? Good. It means you stood up for something in your life."- Winston Churchill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Sep 06, 2015 3:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:51 pm
Posts: 2853
I've built funnels to various degrees of detail. For a (near) circular funnel can can make a stack of a few templates with spacers between them (say 4-5 templates) and than add strips to these discs. Putty and sand and you have a nice funnel object for the Porters. Recasting the funnel is also an option but that requires all the expensive materials to do so.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 19, 2016 10:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 7:29 pm
Posts: 1284
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Are all of the 1/700 kits off the Porter class out of production now? If that is the case, which it looks like it is from my searches, doors anyone know of a good set of plans to scratch build from?

_________________
-Abram


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: uss moffet .porter class
PostPosted: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 12:11 pm
Posts: 71
I am presently scratchbuiding the USS MOFFET . And I don't see any crane which allows to provide torpedoes to the torpedoe tubes wich are very high .


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 26, 2016 4:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3825
A good question. On the SOMERS class there was a telescopic crane (at least after WWII refits started) like used on newer destroyers. But, on the PORTER class as best I can tell there likely were smaller boom cranes erected for the job of reloading. I don't have any good photos of a PORTER showing reloading in process.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Aug 27, 2016 11:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 12:11 pm
Posts: 71
thank you ,rick


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 6:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 9:25 am
Posts: 2256
Location: Los Angeles and Houston
I could have sworn that I had asked a question about the ladders, 1.1" guns, and a few other random questions on the Porter-class.

Specifically for Porter-class that served in the Pacific (But mostly Porter, Selfridge, Phelps, MacDougal, and Clark) from the period of March - Nov 1942.

For the ladders, the Combrig kit for USS Porter for the "wartime fit" contains 12 inclined ladders on the PE fret.

Yet I could only 4 inclined ladders on the ship:

• 1 each P/S from the main deck to the aft forecastle, just beside the forward funnel (as shown in the following Navsource image):

http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/0535614.jpg

• 1 going from the aft forecastle deck to the 02 deck of the bridge.
• 1 going from the 02 to 03 level of the bridge (if I am counting levels correctly.

The above navsource image also shows where 2 vertical ladders (and possibly four) would be placed.

• 1 each P/S and forward of the aft stack on the searchlight/20mm platform.
• due to a break in the railings, and the position of the stanchions, it looks as if there is a ladder P/S from the main deck to the platform just below the searchlight/20mm platform as well.

• And other photos show 2 more vertical ladders, 1 each P/S of the forward 1.1" tub, mounted to the angled portion of the forward face of the bridge.


I cannot find the photo on Navsource again, but it showed one more vertical ladder that was on the after deckhouse, on the starboard side, just behind the 20mm tubs.

But here is where I am having some problems with inclined ladder locations.

The Combrig 1/700 USS Porter kit has a pair of holes cut in the after forecastle for what seems to be inclined ladders from the main deck to forecastle, P/S.

They are located where the violet square is in this image (pre-war USS Clarke, but I have not seen any photos showing inclined ladders in this location):

Attachment:
USS Clark-Ladders.jpg
USS Clark-Ladders.jpg [ 160.84 KiB | Viewed 2040 times ]


(The red arrows are where I was going to ask about the location of ladders before I saw the above USS Porter image clearly showing ladders in that location).

But does anyone know if there were holes in the deck in the location of the violet rectangle, P/S?

I would wonder why they would put Inclined ladders P/S through holes in the aft forecastle, and then put another pair just 20 feet away, P/S of the forward Stack to the aft forecastle?

Some questions about the bridge and aft deckhouse:

The Combrig kit has the area above the Bridge walled in with solid bulwarks, when the photos I can find of that area look to show only the after portion of the Bridge roof to have solid bulwarks, and the front was canvas-covered railings.

Here is a Navsource photo showing the Porter with solid Bulwarks aft, railings forward, on the roof of the Bridge around the director:

http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/0535615.jpg

But did the Porter keep the solid Bulwarks through to her loss in 1942?


Also.... For the Selfridge (to sort of answer for my own question), it looks like the ship kept the Pre-War style Bridge and Tower on her rear deckhouse:

As these images from the Solomons show (pre/post Torpedo wreckage):

(silhouette)
http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/pix2/0535751.jpg

(after Torpedo showing old-style Bridge)
http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/pix2/0545067.jpg

But I realize each ship may be different.

The Phelps also shows the after tower still in place in 1942:

http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/0536006.jpg

And it too looks like it has the wider, pre-war Bridge as late as September.

The Clark looks like it had the Narrower Bridge by Oct. 1941, but still retained the tower on the after superstructure:

http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/0536103.jpg

And there is a "Location Unknown" photo showing USS Clarke without the Tower and with a Narrow Bridge, but without the 20mm tubs P/S of the forward 1.1" tub that it got sometime in 1943:

http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/0536102.jpg

I suspect this is sometime in 1942, but WHEN is what I would like to know (when were the Bridge narrowed and the tower on the aft deckhouse removed?)?

That is a question that I have for most of the 6 Porters that served in the Pacific as all of them save Porter seem to have retained the Tower on the After superstructure AND the wider bridge into at least a portion, if not all, of 1942.

I hope that I can get this figured out, as I would like to find out if I am going to need to replace one of the Porter kits I have with an Pre-war kit, which would be easier to convert to a Wartime fit for the other Porter-class ships in the Pacific for the Early-war.

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 Jun 15, 2017 1:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:59 pm
Posts: 302
Location: Austin
All -

Question about the PORTER class: there is an area of the main deckhouse where I just can't figure out what I'm looking at.

See here, cropped from NH 63120 of DD-357 SELFRIDGE in a prewar configuration. It's the series of racks that look to be about 20' long stretching fore and aft. My suspicion is that they're damage control lumber storage racks, but I can't be sure. There are two of them on the pre-war configuration of this class; one amidships abeam the no.2 stack, and one just forward of Mount 53 along the main deck. They look to be about 6' tall based on the height of sailors on the deck.

Image

Other thoughts could be torpedo impulse lockers (though they seem way too large for just that), vegetable/potato lockers, foul weather gear storage... plenty of other things, but I don't think it's any of those. These ships did not have any light AA armament along the main deck that would necessitate ready service cabinets in these locations either.

Any ideas?

Thanks,
Ian


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2017 2:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:59 pm
Posts: 302
Location: Austin
EJFoeth wrote:
Thanks. Unfortunately I consider Profile Morski to be a very poor source that cannot be used as a reference for any serious build.


Were you able to find plans for the PORTER class from Floating Drydock? I can't find anything related to the class on his site.

Profile Morskie is decent enough but nowhere near FDD quality.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2017 5:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3825
The "containers" are for reload torpedoes. Most of the pre-WWII built destroyers had provisions for reload torpedoes. Normally not enough to reload all the tubes, as it appears could be done on the Leaders. Starting with the King Board Mods to improve AA Armament, one of the first things to be removed to "pay" the weight price for added armament and shielding, since the reload torpedoes weighted quite a lot. That is why these containers are not seen on these destroyers during WWII. Many times a series of cabinets replaced them for all sorts of other items that needed stowage.

The Original designs for the BENSON-GLEAVES (four reloads) and FLETCHER classes included reload torpedoes. None of which were carried during actual operation.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2017 2:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:51 pm
Posts: 2853
Colosseum wrote:
EJFoeth wrote:
Thanks. Unfortunately I consider Profile Morski to be a very poor source that cannot be used as a reference for any serious build.


Were you able to find plans for the PORTER class from Floating Drydock? I can't find anything related to the class on his site.

Profile Morskie is decent enough but nowhere near FDD quality.


The McCandliss series of USS Porter as built appears most suited as a starting point (I bought the set and have it stored away somewhere, don't know where exactly). Still, I'm on the lookout for a primary source so that I can try adding everything, or, material of comparable quality as the Floating Drydock Planbook. I found some pics of the class on various sites and Ebay, plus, there's a wealth on US DD equipment, so I should have enough to start (well, I think).

My main problem with Profile Morski is that I know several ships really well and I can tell when they are actually correct or when they are just filling in the blanks (which they do a lot). For most people it will be just fine I guess but I strife towards reference quality models. For a ship I do not know I cannot tell (because that's why I need a source in the first place) so they are completely unreliable to me.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2017 6:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 6:08 pm
Posts: 240
Location: Yorktown, Indiana, USA
"My main problem with Profile Morski is that I know several ships really well and I can tell when they are actually correct or when they are just filling in the blanks (which they do a lot). For most people it will be just fine I guess but I strife towards reference quality models. For a ship I do not know I cannot tell (because that's why I need a source in the first place) so they are completely unreliable to me."[/quote]

Agree completely. I purchased their Akitsushima set in 1/72, worst investment of the entire project. The errors are appalling. The width of the hull lines exceeds the width of the hull plan. The superstructure and crane are distorted and many details are missing or wrong, the more I checked the more problems I found.

_________________
https://inchhighguy.wordpress.com/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2017 10:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:59 pm
Posts: 302
Location: Austin
Thanks Rick!

Quote:
My main problem with Profile Morski is that I know several ships really well and I can tell when they are actually correct or when they are just filling in the blanks (which they do a lot). For most people it will be just fine I guess but I strife towards reference quality models. For a ship I do not know I cannot tell (because that's why I need a source in the first place) so they are completely unreliable to me.


Yeah, agreed 100%. Just through some basic photo research of the PORTER class I've already started to find errors in the Profile Morskie plans... definitely a departure from their lofty statement of "best warships plans"! My own primary medium is making drawings so I understand the temptation to BS details and I can always recognize where that's happened. PM plans look good from the outset but once you dig deeper their deficiencies always come out.

That said, I've found errors in Floating Drydock "TFW" plans too... from stuff as minor as radio antenna locations to things that are fairly important (FDD's TFW plans of the FARRAGUT class show the mast about 10' shorter than all photos of the class seem to indicate!) Just more proof that photo research is the ONLY way to be sure...

Thanks guys for the assistance!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 5:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:59 pm
Posts: 302
Location: Austin
Another question for you guys: are there any photos of BALCH (DD-363) in early 1942? From photo research, it looks like BALCH had the rear superstructure mostly intact - with the obvious removal of the tripod masts (with a standard foremast). The radar fit looks to be a single Mark 3 Mod.1 "FC" (oblong type) on the Mark 35 director, with no aft director (probably removed in a prior refit). It looks to me like the foremast has the radar foundation built, but no SC has been fitted yet. It even looks like there may be some gun tubs just forward of the aft superstructure on the 01 level... but obviously, I can't be sure. These are pretty grainy photos. It also looks like (at least from the Doolittle Raid photo below) that the "as-built" pilot house and bridge wings with prominent wind deflectors are still present.

I've found the following two photos, cropped from the 30MB TIFFs available at the NHHC: http://imgur.com/a/Q0vxX

Are there any detail shots of the ship available during this period?

Cheers
Ian


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 82 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 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

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group