Calling all HMS York and HMS Exeter (WWII) fans

[wr]

Please give your address and I will send you something in the mail that will help you.

Laurence the source is right and the photo is the same I was looking, but you posted the Exeter as it was in 1941.

I was refering to this profile ( not sure we can post such kind of thing due the copyright if not please a admin delete my reply ):

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y28/Ru ... er1932.jpg

[Dino Carancini]

>snip<

Thank you.

Dino

Please give your address and I will send you something in the mail that will help you.

[Laurence Batchelor]

He means postal address Dino

wr please see books section on these forums.

[mike mccabe]

Any chance of a copy Dino? Been struggling with that area myself although I am a long way behind you.

Mike

[wr]

Your postal address.


quote="Dino Carancini"]d.carancini@virgilio.it

Thank you.

Dino

Please give your address and I will send you something in the mail that will help you.

Laurence the source is right and the photo is the same I was looking, but you posted the Exeter as it was in 1941.

I was refering to this profile ( not sure we can post such kind of thing due the copyright if not please a admin delete my reply ):

[/quote]

[Dino Carancini]

He means postal address Dino

wr please see books section on these forums.

..ops sry I was thinking email-address, thank you Laurence for the correction.

Dino Carancini
via Pertini 8
43039 Salsomaggiore (PR)
Italy

[wr]

Dear Mr Caracini,
Am posting two sketches to you tomorrow of Exeter's aft superstructure. Use for general guidence only. For the precise measurements you will HAVE to refer to the "AS FITTED" plans.
By 1939 the box shaped structure between fore funnel and the bridge structure had been covered over, which makes it easier to model.
Please post here when you receive the material.

He means postal address Dino

wr please see books section on these forums.

..ops sry I was thinking email-address, thank you Laurence for the correction.

Dino Carancini
via Pertini 8
43039 Salsomaggiore (PR)
Italy

[wr]

Have looked the Russian profile; get rid of it.

He means postal address Dino

wr please see books section on these forums.

..ops sry I was thinking email-address, thank you Laurence for the correction.

Dino Carancini
via Pertini 8
43039 Salsomaggiore (PR)
Italy

[Laurence Batchelor]

The Russian profile drawing is free!

WR please see O/P class thread in the books section.

Cheers

[Tim Stoneman]

Most drawings (such as the one posted by Laurence Batchelor earlier in this thread) of EXETER's catapults show a 'V'-shaped configuration, with two catapults pointing at about 40 degrees from the ships axis to port and starboard; some drawings show a short fore'n'aft section of track joining the after ends of the catapults. However, Leo Marriott's book Catapult Aircraft (Barnsley: Pen & Sword Aviation, 2006) includes the following statement:
"As completed .... Exeter also carried only a single catapult and aircraft. However, by the time they re-equipped with Ospreys, Exeter had been modified to carry two aircraft on fixed EIIH catapults angled port and starboard, with one staggered slightly aft of the other so that two aircraft could be stowed with wings folded." (my underlining)
I believe Marriott to be mistaken (certainly she was completed without a catapult at all - a number of photos showing this exist - and I know of no photos showing a single catapult), and suspect that, when first fitted for catapulting she had two in the 'V' configuration (not staggered), retaining this arrangement until sunk.

Any opinions (or confirmation)?

[Laurence Batchelor]

There's also this what appears to be a constructors drawing in the iffy Russian book online:-



I'm with you Tim I've never seen her commissioned with a single catapult only with the 'V' type.

Could Marriott be suggesting she had a different one for a very brief time for a trail maybe?

The RN were certainly toying around with catapults at this time.

[MichelB]

I'd say! That is very good!

[Laurence Batchelor]

Beautiful work Dino, I'm happy she turned out so wonderfully.

Is the NMM mail server bouncing emails back then?
Try this email address instead :- AChoong@nmm.ac.uk

I wish I had my Exeter 'As Fitteds' back in my possession then I could show you the catapult and aft superstructure properly

Kind Regards
Laurence

[wr]

The problem with the drawings shown here is that this type, (double extending or slider type) was only used on two of the Phaeton class cruisers as completed, and these were fixed awartships between the two funnels flush with the forecastle deck level.
To use these drawings on any other ships would be an error.
Exeter used the single extending type, while York as completed had a FOLDING type, whereby the two sections lay alongside one another. When in use, one of the sections turned horizontally through 180 degrees to connect with the fore end of the first section, thus giving the required length for take off. Hood also had this type of catapult, fitted on the quarterdeck.
Later the folding type was removed from the York and replaced with a single extending/slider type, to allow for the use of the Walrus type aircraft.

PS; Anything that comes out of eastern Europe or Russia is often very misleading to model makers.

I hope that this is of some use value to model makers.

There's also this what appears to be a constructors drawing in the iffy Russian book online:-



I'm with you Tim I've never seen her commissioned with a single catapult only with the 'V' type.

Could Marriott be suggesting she had a different one for a very brief time for a trail maybe?

The RN were certainly toying around with catapults at this time.

[Laurence Batchelor]

There are problems of course with 'As fitteds'

1) Cost and the access are biggies!
2) The sheer size of them, you need a large surface e.g. 'pasting table' size to roll them out.
3) Unlike commercial plans whereby usually 1-3 sheets are crammed with info, the 'As fitteds' each have a seperate area of the ship or information on each sheet, making you have to order several sheets which hikes the costs up still further.
4) If it can be avoided I'd advise large scale modellers who wish to use them should only buy around 3 sheets. The side-on profile, the sheet which gives the above deck profiles and the rigging plan sheet. As wr points out sometimes you will need the 'Alterations and Additions' sheets but not all ships have these drawn or sometimes their included on the former sheets.
5) See my previous posts above their accuracy and coverage which again for modellers can cause problems.

Suffice to say they are still the best plans source to work from despite the above problems and combined with photographs make the best source to work from.

[wr]

Young Lawrence,
You are giving out somewhat misleading information here.

i General arrangement "as fitted" set.
Order the following:
(a) Profile
(b) Forecastle deck
(c) Superstructure and bridge decks

The above should be orderd at HALF SIZE of the original; the originals will be drawn at 1" = 8'.



ii (a) "as fitted" rig sheet
(b) "as fitted WT sheet

The above should be ordered at full size. The originals wre drawn at 1" = 16'.

It is likely that some As and As are contained on the original "as fitted" set.
Seperate A and A fly sheets for wartime are unlikely to have survived in this case. And any way this is not required in this case.

There is no such thing as an above deck profile sheet, there is just the profile sheet.

If the plans are ordered at a scale of 1" = 16' then costs will be very much reduced.

There are problems of course with 'As fitteds'

1) Cost and the access are biggies!
2) The sheer size of them, you need a large surface e.g. 'pasting table' size to roll them out.
3) Unlike commercial plans whereby usually 1-3 sheets are crammed with info, the 'As fitteds' each have a seperate area of the ship or information on each sheet, making you have to order several sheets which hikes the costs up still further.
4) If it can be avoided I'd advise large scale modellers who wish to use them should only buy around 3 sheets. The side-on profile, the sheet which gives the above deck profiles and the rigging plan sheet. As wr points out sometimes you will need the 'Alterations and Additions' sheets but not all ships have these drawn or sometimes their included on the former sheets.
5) See my previous posts above their accuracy and coverage which again for modellers can cause problems.

Suffice to say they are still the best plans source to work from despite the above problems and combined with photographs make the best source to work from.

[Filipe Ramires]

Presumably Steve your model is 'large' scale? At 112 pounds not includng postage I think it is fair to say this is the reason the majority of 1:700 scale modellers won't go to the trouble of buying as fitted plans!

I agree completely! Given the experience I have now with my HMS York (on this particular class and topic) I can say that the 1/700 modelers expend much already to achieve the best of what they can out from a model and having in the end a small but wonderful model. With York, apart from the cost of the Samek model herself, the amount of money expended on extras (resin parts from WEM, plenty of photo-etch, sets, "evil" Morskie book, etc etc) and with all the scratch-built parts I've done for her and the documentation I gather with the help of some of the lads here on the board I am quite happy with my results. In no way I would spend such amount of money that the "as fitted" official plans ask for just to build and improve a 1/700 model. If it was entirely scratch I admit I would consider the option and in fact I am waiting for 1/40 plans of the Vouga class Portuguese destroyers from the Portuguese Navy Museum Archives to build a 1/700 model out of it or perhaps something bigger.

[wr]

My apologies.

Steve wartime additions to plans are rare indeed, they just never had the time to keep updating the plans in wartime.
Sometimes the dockyards did draw some modifications, but you usually can only get to see the full wartime additions from clear photographs.

Dear old WR to my knowledge you can no longer order half size!
They only do you full-size copies in black-and-white or for even more expense they can do colour again full-size!
Your going by what was available in the 1970s and not today's copying I'm afraid.

Please excuse my incorrect terminology I merely meant order the sheet or sheets with the decks given in a birds-eye view.
Not being a draftsman myself please escuse if I don't use the correct terminology.
Please also spell my name correctly

In-terms of photos, the Japanese aerial photo's of her being sunk are like this, you can make out very little!





On a brighter note this is a good view of her catapult area:-

[Laurence Batchelor]

Here's an example if one was to enquire for plans for Illustrious from the NMM (note the scales and the prices!)
Also they have 1936/37 sheets, 1940 sheets and 1946 sheets for her:-

1 Rig - port profile 1940 NPN4628 1:192 �16.92
2 Rig - starboard profile 1940 NPN4629 1:192 �16.92
3 Profile 1946 NPA4173 1:192 �16.92
4 Bridges 1946 NPA4174 1:192 �16.92
5 Flight/upp & lwr gall dks 1946 NPA4175 1:192 �16.92
6 Hangar/upp & main dks 1946 NP A4176 1:192 �16.92
7 Lower & platform dk/hold 1946 NP A4177 1:192 �16.92
8 Sections 1946 NPA4178 1:192 �16.92
9 Lines plan 1937 NPB4155 ADR612 1:96 �16.92
10 Lines plan 1936 NPB4136 ADR610 1:96 �16.92
11 Arr. Armour flight deck NPB413 7 1:48 �16.92
12 Rig (class) NPB4138 1:192 �16.92
13 Displacement & Body plan NPB4141 ADR610 1:48 �16.92
14 Profile 1936 NPB4142 ADR611 1:96 �16.92
15 Flight Dk & Bridges 1936 NPB4143 ADR611 1:96 �16.92
16 Lower & Dpp Gall Decks 1936 NPB4144 ADR6 1:96 �16.92
17 Hangar & Dpp Deck 1936 NPB4145 ADR611 1:96 �16.92
18 Main & Lower Deck 1936 NPB4146 ADR611 1:96 �16.92
19 Platform Dk & Hold 1936 NPB4147 ADR611 1:96 �16.92
20 Sections 1936 NPB4148 ADR611 1:96 �16.92
21 Armour & Protection 1936 NPB4149 ADR611 1:192 �16.92
22 Rig 1936 NPB4150 ADR611 1:192 �16.92
23 Midship section 1936 ADR611 1:24 �16.92
24 Set thro fward magazine 1936 1:24 �16.92
25 Set aft about 142 1936 1:24 �16.92
26 Set fward in way of 4.5" gun supports 1:24 �16.92
27 Rig (revised) 1937 NPB4173 1:192 �16.92

So if one was to order the lot thats around �450! plus a research and handling fee of �11.75 and say about �8 postage in a tube in the UK.
More if registered airmail, thats a lot of wonga folks!

As we discussed above its best to cherry pick whats needed. For large-scale modelling any sheets concentrating on internal features can be ignored.
Of course depending on what year the modeller wanted to depict Illustrious in the above example would determine which sheets they would only buy.

[Steve Sobieralski]

Presumably Steve your model is 'large' scale? At 112 pounds not includng postage I think it is fair to say this is the reason the majority of 1:700 scale modellers won't go to the trouble of buying as fitted plans!

Its 1/192 Mike. And I (and my wallet) would have been quite happy to be doing without them myself, until wr pointed out some errors in the Ough plans I was using.