Calling all Arleigh Burke-class (DDG-51) fans

[carr]

..

[Timmy C]

Bob, in looking at your comparison again, I must say that I disagree. The photo of the actual ship is clearly take from a point forward of the midships point (you can see the surface of the front of the aft funnel), whereas the photo of the model is taken from behind the midships point (you can see a bit of the rear surface of the fore funnel and quite a bit of the back of the bridge). If you mentally adjust these perspectives, I think that the line for the hangar doors will line up.

[navydavesof]

I know what I am going to add to the ship! It's going to be great!

David,

If you haven't seen it already, you might want to check my post of 2-May in this thread. The Trumpeter Lassen appears to have some noteworthy problems with location of the hangar and superstructure.

Regards,
Bob

Bob,
Thank you. I bought the Lassen and actually butchered it terribly to make a modern CAG. I like how it is laid out, but I have not really any detail comparisons yet. I have a Warships Pictorial on the Burkes, and I will be reading this post and asking questions of you guys for such comparisons. That has been of good help. I am looking forwad to getting my hands on the Forrest Sherman model and doctor it. I am interested in the Momsen, too with its UWV hanger.

[carr]

..

[Timmy C]

I think this shot of the kit's hull has a more perpendicular angle than the one in the comparison:
http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/sh ... ull-02.jpg

I would also suggest using the kit's painting guide as the point of comparison, assuming it is rendered from the CAD that made the model:
http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/sh ... /color.jpg

Attached below is a comparison using the paint guide - sorry for the craptastic quality, but I can't figure out how to save an Autodesk file as a .jpg or .png decently. As you can see, Line 7 is much more acceptable with the paint guide as the comparison. Other proportions are off, but can be explained within reasonable bounds by parallax in the photo of the actual ship.

[navydavesof]

Do you guys realize that we are all dorks concerning ourselves with tiny differences like 2mm gaps and certain angles on stacks?

Who has OCD? This guy!

Keep it up, guys. Here are the projects I am going to need some extra help on. My USS Iowa/Modernized Iowa I am consulting THE guy who designed the '80s modernization for New Jersey which dictated what the other Iowas got later on, and he has been an incredible base of knowledge. I think I will stick with him for modernization tasks.

What I will need help with is one of the Flight IIA Burkes, Bizmark/Tirpitz, and Yamato. Thanks, guys!

[Bigdaddy Mark]

One more question.


is the part next to part 11. Should those be painted as windows? I can't find any pictures to show this area, but they sure look like windows to me.

[Timmy C]

I guess that's what it's supposed to be, but I don't see any evidence of them on that surface:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/05019228.jpg
http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/05019503.jpg
http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/05019514.jpg

Nice closeup of DDG-99's:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/05019917.jpg

As you can see, absolutely featureless except for some dishing-in of the surface.

[carr]

..

[Timmy C]

The forward-facing surface of the exhaust structure (?) on top of the hangar roof.

Part N10: http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/sh ... ons-10.jpg
The kit as viewed from forward: http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/sh ... ons-12.jpg

[carr]

..

[Timmy C]

It's part N10 - check the instruction pages I posted The second one shows that part, with the indents and the handrail, on that surface.

[navydavesof]

Does anyone know anything about the different versions of the Burkes initially proposed before the version that turned into the "Flight I" was chosen? There were several different variants, and some of them were really cool...and would make excellent models.

[carr]

..

[Tracy White]

Haven't paid attention to the ship or parts in question, but could they be intakes instead of windows?

[Timmy C]

No problem Bob My first thought was perhaps they needed windows to see the VLS, but that made not much sense and photos show their absence anyway.

[navydavesof]

David,

If you haven't seen it already, you might want to check my post of 2-May in this thread. The Trumpeter Lassen appears to have some noteworthy problems with location of the hangar and superstructure.

Regards,
Bob

Bob,

I saw! The discrepencies are disappointing. I really want to see a long, strong version of the Burke. The Flight IIA offers a little bit of that, but if the model does not accurately portray that, I might have to do some modification.

I can only imagine what the Flight III of 1988 would look like after the Flight IIA revisions were made to her. I bet she'd be hot like a Columbian stri.....never mind. She'd be hot and perhaps even worth of the title Guided-Missile Cruiser.

I won a $50 Hobby Town gift card at the local Hobby Town competition this last weekend. I took in the modernized Spruance and got a lot of questions and comments

Can anyone guess what I am going to do with the $50 gift card? It has something to do with this thread! I'll give you a hint. It starts with and "F" and ends with "orrest Sherman".

[navydavesof]

You might try asking navydavesof - he made a similar platform for the Phalanxes on his upgraded Iowa and Spruance models:
viewtopic.php?f=67&t=43658&start=240

They are a little different from the ones on the Burkes (sloped top on the Burkes verses stepped top on Dave's), but it should be useful anyway.

I have some food for thought. What the Phalanx CIWS chair looks like, sloped

or stepped,

depends on which ship you are looking at.

I saw there was another question as to how far from the structure Phalanx was positioned.

As you can see, it's actually really far away from the aft structure.

It seems that most of the ships, however, have the slopped backs instead of the stair-stepped ones. If you are interested in fabricating one, it can be done with square and rectangular stock styrene!

[navydavesof]

For as retarded as this whole class of ship looks, this is really one of the most beautiful shots of the class I have seen.

She is undergunned, under protected, over priced, and has little to no room topside for additional equipment...but she's kind of neat looking.

[navydavesof]

Does anyone have information about the Flight III Arleigh Burkes, either the 1988 version or the one being considered as a CG replacement now?