The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Tue Dec 18, 2018 3:53 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 397 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Feb 19, 2016 11:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3205
Flyhawk makes a 1/700 scale kit of the USS WARD that with modifications can be altered to other members of the WICKES/CLEMSON classes.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2016 5:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 10:24 pm
Posts: 352
I have heard very favorable comments about the 1/700 Flyhawk Ward - a very recent release. Very reasonable price too. (I've built two 1/700 DDs released twenty years plus back - both were proper headaches, but look the part from ten feet away. Cost the same as the Flyhawk.)

_________________
A model boat is much cheaper than a real one and will not sink with you in it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2016 11:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 7:29 pm
Posts: 1144
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Thanks guys! What is the difference between the limited/deluxe version and the regular version?

*edit* it looks like the deluxe version comes with more PE and brass barrels, is that the only difference? I'm going to need several kits (I have a crazy plan to build the Pacific fleet circa 1941) so keeping the cost lower is ideal.

_________________
-Abram


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Mar 20, 2016 7:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2013 11:41 am
Posts: 942
Location: CT, US of A
Abram, more PE is the bottom line. Go to Flyhawk's site and you can see the difference between the two versions.

Just this evening I started on my Ward (basic version) and it is an experience. It's one thing to admire the delicacy of the moldings in the box but quite another to get the tiniest parts off the sprues undamaged. Plus, even the basic kit has more than enough PE for my tastes, thank you very much :smallsmile:
Take a deep breath or two and ensure you won't be distracted for a while as you work on this kit. I can see that the result will be worth the effort.

_________________
Harold


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Mar 20, 2016 10:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 7:13 pm
Posts: 203
Location: Wellington New Zealand
The Flyhawk 4 piper is a lovely kit - but beware the funnels! they are oval, a REAL 4 piper had round ones. They have the correct number of rivets though.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2016 9:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2013 11:41 am
Posts: 942
Location: CT, US of A
Lester Abbey wrote:
They have the correct number of rivets though.

:big_grin:

_________________
Harold


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 7:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 7:36 am
Posts: 3
Hello all,

I am interested in building Revell's ancient Wickes Class DD into a passable replica of a late 1930s-era U.S. Navy ship. Would the Anatomy of The Ship Campbeltown book be helpful in this? Or are the drawings in the book really specific or exclusive to World War II?

Thanks!

Mark G.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Mar 31, 2016 2:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 3:18 pm
Posts: 540
It would be useful for all era's.
hth John


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 17, 2016 12:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2013 12:17 pm
Posts: 34
Location: BC, Canada
Guys:
I want to build a 1/350 HMCS St. Croix, I see ISW has a kit but also the WEM Montgomery, which is probably a better one, comments or suggestions on best starting point?
I know this ship went thru several refits before being lost in Sept '43, I want to try to model the ship as late a configuration as possible.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 18, 2016 11:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 6:38 pm
Posts: 257
Jamie
I would recommend using the WEM model strongly. The model provides a lot of PE which you may or may not use. I converted it to HMCS Annapolis which at the detail level required much modification to align it with photos, not only including deleting one funnel! Here is a photo.
Best Wishes
George


Attachments:
Annapolis weathered 696.jpg
Annapolis weathered 696.jpg [ 104.04 KiB | Viewed 1352 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 20, 2016 9:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 10:39 pm
Posts: 656
Location: Westminster, Colorado
Greetings,
I'm finding a lot of conflicting information on what measure USS Ward was in on Dec 7th, 1941. Was she painted in 5-D? Measure 11 (as depicted by Flyhawk)? Does anyone have any information on the correct measure? I've even seen measure 31-12T but I'm having a hard time with that one. I'm interested to hear your thoughts.
Thank you
Dave


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 20, 2016 11:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 3:18 pm
Posts: 540
I believe the Pacific Fleet carried the 5 D dark grey paint measures on Dec 7th. Except for some (test) or trial colours like 5 S, that was worn by some destroyers and cruisers. The manufacture of 5 D had been discontinued months before that date.
I'm sure others have their opinions also, (could have been blue) I'm not sure anybody knows for sure (colour photo)so it's up to you.
HTH


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 20, 2016 1:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 10:39 pm
Posts: 656
Location: Westminster, Colorado
Thanks for the feedback.
Dave


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 20, 2016 2:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 9693
Location: EG48
It's an unknown at this time. Ward was part of DesDiv 80, which was attached to the 14th Naval District and not part of the "regular" fleet. Photos of Shaw in drydock following a collision (i.e. repair work and fresh repainting) on December 7th very strongly suggest she was being repainted in 5-S, but I haven't been able to find anything that talks about the district's ships other than yard craft (tugs, lighters, etc.) and where they might be on the priority list. Could have been Measure 1, could have been Measure 11.

Measure 1 is correct for a good part of 1941 at least. She recommissioned in pre-war #5 so there were at least two, but possibly three schemes for the year.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 20, 2016 11:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 10:39 pm
Posts: 656
Location: Westminster, Colorado
Thanks for the info Tracy. I think I'm going to run with Measure 1. Sorry for the bad rhyme. The pictures I've seen of her appear to be in this measure.
Take care
Dave


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 12:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 9693
Location: EG48
She was definitely in Measure 1 before the attack and Measure 11 after the attack.

Her division mate DD-66 Allen was captured in the background in February 1942 of some shots I came across of SS-179 Plunger's accident when hauling out for work on a marine railways here and here. She's too light to be 5-D even though she still has the light 5-L on the mast. We just don't know when and Measure 1 may be the "safest"

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 1:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:36 pm
Posts: 178
Just to clarify this topic on page 14...

Those big holes in the side are for the engine main condenser, not the boilers. Salt water in a boiler would ruin the boiler tubes very quickly. Steam that goes through the turbines exits into the main condenser where, since it's under a vacuum, loses it's heat to the condenser tubes which have salt water running through them. The condensed fresh water is then pumped to a de-aerating tank to remove dissolved oxygen (oxygen and water are corrosive) and pumped back into the boilers. When the ship is going very slow or going astern a propeller type pump located just before the main condenser takes a suction from the sea chest (the opening at the front, that's what it's called) and pumps the sea water through the condenser tubes. When the ship picks up speed going forward, there is enough pressure/vacuum from rushing sea water outside the hull to force a flow of water through the condenser tubes without using a circulating pump. Something else you don't see in the picture are the shutoff valves to both openings. In an emergency flooding situation, the forward valve can be closed and a bilge suction valve can be opened with the circulating pump started so they can pump water out of the engine room. That's only used for emergencies, because an engine room has all manner of debris like rags which could clog up the condenser tubes and block water flow.

Some ships may have a three sea chest arrangement. Two inlet ports, one for natural circulation and one for the circulating pump, and only one outlet port. With this arrangement there is a shutoff valve for each sea chest and one additional valve in the natural flow inlet. This valve is called a check valve or "flapper" valve. When the circulating pump is started the sea water takes the path of least resistance and prefers to exit via the natural circulation inlet instead of going through the condenser tubes. The reverse flow of this water will close the flapper and keep the water flowing into the condenser tubes. Every engineer knows when the flapper closes, it can be heard and felt in the deck plates. LOL


Attachments:
File comment: photo from navsource
0520711.jpg
0520711.jpg [ 152.43 KiB | Viewed 1201 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2016 7:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2013 12:17 pm
Posts: 34
Location: BC, Canada
George W wrote:
Jamie
I would recommend using the WEM model strongly. The model provides a lot of PE which you may or may not use. I converted it to HMCS Annapolis which at the detail level required much modification to align it with photos, not only including deleting one funnel! Here is a photo.
Best Wishes
George

Great thanks George! I see the later versions had the bridge windows covered or converted to simple portholes?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2016 8:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 6:38 pm
Posts: 257
Jamie
The forward superstructure was coved in sheet metal, it was called "platted in" and not many RN/RCN ships of this type had that done. It provided extra strengthening against the rigors of the N. Atlantic. I do not think that St Croix was "platted in". The recent Friedman DD book would be a good reference with lots of photos and line drawings.
George


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2017 12:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2013 12:17 pm
Posts: 34
Location: BC, Canada
George W wrote:
Jamie
The forward superstructure was coved in sheet metal, it was called "platted in" and not many RN/RCN ships of this type had that done. It provided extra strengthening against the rigors of the N. Atlantic. I do not think that St Croix was "platted in". The recent Friedman DD book would be a good reference with lots of photos and line drawings.
George


Hey George:
I noticed that one modeller portrayed St Croix with the original bridge windows plated over, and a green shade added to her blue camo scheme, Im assuming it was her final 'as lost' configuration ? She is quite similar to the 1/350 WEM Montgomery.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 397 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 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