Calling all USCG Famous-class & Reliance-class medium endurance cutters fans

[Peter O]

I'm going to be starting my 1/700 JAG USCGC Bear soon, building her as the Campbell WMEC-909 stationed at Portsmouth NH. Being an AF vet, I'm totally clueless about USCG aviation ops.

The Bear class has a retractable hangar. When it is extended, and when is it retracted? I'm planning on putting a helo on deck, and want the hangar to be in the appropriate configuration. I haven't decided if I'm going to display the helo blades/tail folded or in flight position, if that makes a difference.

Thanks!

Peter

[Paul O'Reilly]

Peter,

I was a pilot aboard a USN frigate for a year and I presume the operating procedures would be similar, if not identical, for a Coastie. The hangar would be extended with the helo in the hangar. When preparing for a launch the hangar is retracted and the helo is then pushed further aft to the launch position (in the middle of the circle). While airborne the hangar is left retracted as extending it would foul the flight deck. This is true if another ship were operating its helicopter and your ship was in company. This is to allow an emergency deck in the event of an in-flight emergency.

If the helo is in a "Ready Alert" state on deck with the blades spread the hangar would be in the retracted position.

So the short answer to your question is - if the blades are spread then the hangar is to be in the retracted position. If the blades are folded and the aircraft has been pushed forward of the landing position to its normal parked position then the hangar may be extended.

HTH

Paul O'Reilly

[Peter O]

Thanks, Paul, that's very helpful. I like the looks of the open deck, so I'm leaning towards blades spread and hanger stowed.

Peter

[pnolan48]

I am scratchbuilding a 1:160 model of the Reliance-class cutters (actually I'm building 5 of them, for eventual sale). Does anybody have any info on how the rear of the helicopter deck (deck 01) was supported? I have fairly good plans, but can't interpret how the deck was supported, and lack photos to show this detail. The plans indicate a number of support posts supporting the overhang, but I've never seen them in photos.

I'm also building 5 Aggressive-class minesweepers, and 5 173-foot subchasers, the latter because they are simple to build. Just trying this to supplement my retirement income.

[superhornet1015]

Hope you can still use these photo's.

[superhornet1015]

Here's some more.





Hope you can use these pictures for your project.

Pete

[pnolan48]

Pete,

Thanks so much for the photos! They will help a lot, and I appreciate your effort at getting them posted.

The Reliance class has proven to be a difficult hull to construct out of built-up styrene, so I suspended production in order to get some easier hulls into production, such as the 125-foot Active class (a pretty hull) and a 142-foot Santa Fe Railroad tug (not so pretty but straightforward). I may end up casting the Reliance hulls, but they are probably just at the limit for feasible casting. I do have five hulls built, but the bows have just been wrong.

Those transom-based exhausts look nasty. Is that why they added a funnel in the mid 80s rebuild?

Thanks again,

Pete

[superhornet1015]

Yup,pretty much, not to mention that they were a pain in the butt for the crew to wash,I used to watch those guys as they were scrubbing them down and laughing,mainly because I was not the one doing the washing. To me I think they look better with the stacks that were add in the late 80's.


Pete

[superhornet1015]

Hey Pete, what would the going price be for one of those Reliance class cutters of your's?


Pete

[pnolan48]

They are going to be expensive, in the $900-$1200 range. Or perhaps even more. But they are no-compromise 1:160 models, with custom photo-etched brass for the bridge, flight deck safety nets, and main deck railings, and also many custom castings for boats and boat-handling gear, including RIBs. I'm even trying a 1:160 Dauphin, as the 1:144 are simply too big.

I have five hulls built, but the bow contours are wrong, too bulbous, and I haven't quite figured out how to modify the built-up styrene construction. The superstructure is complex and has to be hand-built, with curves in all three dimensions--these look good, but have to be built in situ, which makes painting a pain. Besides the bow, the hull is fiendishly difficult because of the tumblehome aft of the bridge. It was not so hard to build one, but repeating the builds is taxing my skills. I was trying to do the hull sides up to the flight deck as one continuous skin, but that decision may have been foolish. There are no visible formers for the tumblehome so, unless I went to brass, the continuous skin was the only solution I came up with.

It is a beautiful ship. I agree that the stack refit, along with the larger bridge, improved their looks. I will be getting back to them next month, after I finish up the Active-class cutters and the Santa Fe tugs.

[pnolan48]

I have to admit that I recognized those pictures as from New Bedford at first glance. It was just New England light, and that one iconic (but rather nondescript) building.

[Garth]

You know what's interesting? My grand-uncle, my late-father's uncle was an officer aboard the RELIANCE in the 60s or 70s, his name was Maurice (Morris) Fitzgerald.

And, in WW2, he would "test" Higgins PTs when he would deliver them from the Higgins plant to the port of New Orleans.

Garth

[pnolan48]

Hey Pete (superhornet 1015)

When the stacks were put on in the mid- to late-90s refurbishment, was the bridge also expanded quite a lot? My plans for the original bridge versus the refurb bridge show quite a difference. The new bridge seems a bit taller, closer to the edges of the deck, and with slanting windows. The phenomenon of expanding bridges seems as inevitable as my expanding waistline.

[superhornet1015]

Hey Garth, that seems pretty cool.


Hey Pete(pnolan48) as far as I know yes they did expand the bridge, they also changed a few other things ,not sure what tho. I hear you on that expanding waist line to.


Pete

[Russ2146]

Hey guys,

Not sure if you all are aware of this, http://www.hnsa.org/doc/plans/wmec628.pdf

It looks to be after the funnel and other mods were made.

This is the pre-mod vessal booklet http://www.hnsa.org/doc/plans/wpc627.pdf

[pnolan48]

Hey guys,

Not sure if you all are aware of this, http://www.hnsa.org/doc/plans/wmec628.pdf

It looks to be after the funnel and other mods were made.

This is the pre-mod vessal booklet http://www.hnsa.org/doc/plans/wpc627.pdf

Those are the plans I used. The site also has the scantlings for the Active-class 125-footers, as well as buoy tenders and other ships.

[superhornet1015]

Hey Russ, nice plans. 210 sure look different with a stack on it.



Pete

[pnolan48]

Hey Russ, nice plans. 210 sure look different with a stack on it.



Pete

Of the folks I've spoken to, many think the stack version is more handsome. It's not a huge difference in superstructures (mostly just an extension of the 02 deck by 12 feet into the flight deck), so I'll be able to offer a choice.