Calling all Iowa-class (BB-61) fans

[RandyM]

Interesting... in all the hundreds of photos I've studied, I've not noticed that: this is what OP805 has...

[Fliger747]

[BB62vet]

RandyM, Tom F, et al...

Re. the barrels - this is a good example of things I see every day in engineering drawings - the "design" versus "as built" - the 5"/38 barrels were, as Tom noted, without step - a smooth transition from the breech to the muzzle. I've also noticed this in many of the kit supplied gun barrels - they are stepped (and very pronounced) when they should be either a subtle step or smooth tranistion. It's more noticable on the larger caliber barrels. Quite possibly the kit/part manufacturer is also looking at the design drawings as opposed to researching the actual item as constructed and used in the fleet.

Randy you've done a wonderful job on the gun mounts - kudos! Also, thanks for bringing out the size differences in the Mk. 28 and Mk. 32 mounts. It's not hard to get things incorrect when the printed materials are, in fact, incorrect as well. One pamphlet just doesn't cover all the mounts that were constructed during the war years.

CliffyB did a great job of taking measurements - nice to have that availability on this forum!!

Hank

[RandyM]

No step.... I have no dimensions for this barrel so I simply deleted the step and carried the taper up to the same point (aft end of the step). So the profile now looks like:

- flat area at muzzle
- taper
- flat area leading to breach

[Fliger747]

In the photo of the 51 mt you can see the recoil area, which as with the main battery appears to be raw steel covered with a cosmoline material. I would have to look at the current photos of bb63 but I suspect the recoil area has been painted over for the main battery. If I come up with any useful data I will pass it along. I do have a 3d drawing of the twin mounts which shows the points at which the barrel taper changes, there are several very subtle points of taper change. I suspect we won't get Cliffy shimmying out a barrel with a Taylor's tape. My really dim recollection is that the thickness of the barrel at the muzzle is about 1".

Somewhere someone knows!

Quite nice indeed, might make a great virtual tour display for the BB63!

[RandyM]

Your wish.... check the above image again: I changed the "appearance" of the aft straight portion of the barrels to a semi-gloss chromium plate. I'm only just starting to learn second-order nuances of Solidworks: there are powerful imaging settings which can be made, in addition to motion/animation (including physics) and "flybys/walk-throughs."

Now that this mount is almost complete, I'm going to copy it into 1/350 and 1/96 scales. I want to print a 1/96 version to see whether it could form the basis of a master for resin replication.

And if someone were to get Cliff to "schwimmy" (great term) out onto the end of the barrel, I'd be far more interested in THAT photo...

[Fliger747]

If he fell off he would then go for a Schwimmy... Would look great in 1:192...

Cheers: T

[Fliger747]

The Mk 32 mount was supposedly for Cruisers and the Mk 28 for Battleships. Mk 38 used on Summners and Gearings. It might be that the heavier splinter protection for the Mk 28 required slightly different exterior dimension. The 5" and 6" rifles were a radially expanded monoblock construction, a particular pre stressing and forging process not scalable to larger weapons which were typically layered. The "damper" attached to the gun captains hatch is referred to as a counterweight. It may well be it just contains a weight? Springs and pressurized material such as in the hold open rods found on some European cars for hoods etc. are also possible.

At this level of detail the project might take a while!

[Fliger747]

One hell of a screwdriver to put those pointer and trainer sight hoods on! Also note the scarf joint in the turret overhead armor.

Cheers: T

[Fliger747]

Cliffy mentioned hydraulic motors to open and close the doors. I didn't remember any such devices inside the coning tower, however it does appear that a drive shaft penetrates the 04 deck for a possible driving device located lower down, To the left of the stb armored door is another shaft which appears to be the drive shaft for the fire control (05) level door. I just guessed that they had about 5 guys push on it!

[Cliffy B]

The motors on the 03 Level.

[Fliger747]

Thanks Cliffy, keep learning stuff every day!

T

[RandyM]

[Fliger747]

Amazing great contrast in the cubic volumiztion of the larger scales!

[BB62vet]

Re: Conning tower door photo -

I don't think the 04/05 Level Conning Tower Doors were manually opened. I can't recall anyone ever speaking of doing that on NEW JERSEY during my time aboard. The doors were always operated electrically. I may be wrong, but I can't see even 4-6 men physically moving those doors.

Hank

[BB62vet]

Gusset Plate Location - This is for Cliffy B -

Mike, if you could get a dimension for me, I would appreciate it. The location of the first gusset plate from the bow is critical to the layout of the other plates going aft. The photo of BB62 below is marked up to show what I need. The distance from the top of the 1st plate to the forward edge of the chock seems to be a good distance to measure.

The Eduard Plate Set includes a gauge to locate the upper (long) and lower (short) gusset plates but this first location is the critical one. The instructions give 35,0 mm as the distance between plate pairs and that translates to 1 3/8" (for 1:200 scale kits). I've laid out in pencil the stbd side, but am not confident in the location of the first plate - that's why I've posted this question to you.

Thanks,

Hank

[Cliffy B]

I'll try man, no promises. Might just have to take a photo from the pier and use the length of the chock to measure the distance.

Here's a series of shots from BB-64's Flag Bridge. You can see the hydraulic motors for the conning tower doors in some of the shots.
http://s647.photobucket.com/user/Cliffy ... 20Interior
Password = Battleship

[James M]

There is a manual crank for opening/closing the armored doors.
Just inside the door on the left is a gearbox with a square brass shaft that accepts a handle, just like the one used to on the securing pins for the door.
For some reason they are two different sizes. I would have thought it would have been better to keep them the same and have only one handle size.

It is really easy to manually shut the doors. Just takes a lot of cranking.

The doors are offset from each other to help strengthen the citadel and one hit shouldn't jam multiple doors. Even the peepholes are offset from each other.

James

[Fliger747]

Hank

My examination of many photos to place my gussets revealed that the spacing was not always the same, though the offset top and bottom was a constant.

I wonder what a cranked door mechanism would have attached to? Are there gears on the backside of the upper hinge? Will have to look at some of my closed and open photos. Of course the ever helpful Cliffy might be tiring of our errands all over the ship!

Cheers. Tom

[Cliffy B]

I'm tired for other reasons but not from exploring the ship Only cranks I "know" of are on the interior side of the door and are for the locking pins (1 for each). Not sure where the actual controls are for operating the door. Guess they're inside the tower itself but we have wood and plexi barricades fitted in the openings that are rather snug. Might try climbing over and in and root around. Been wanting to do that anyway. I'll be spending some time in the Chart House for now as well doing some restoration so the conning tower is literally around the corner

Remember those guys, just because its a certain way on the Wisky, doesn't mean its the exact same way on the other gals