The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:30 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4843 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 ... 243  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Nov 02, 2019 10:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 9:07 pm
Posts: 447
Fliger747 wrote:
Currently this ladder is a wider than normal inclined ladder, as is the aft facing ladders aft of the wardroom. My extremely vague recollection from time aboard Missouri in the mid 60's was that these were at the time standard ladders. Question is were these changed as accommodation to the turons when these became museum ships.


The ladders at the forward superstructure of the on the NJ have not been changed. In fact, they are blocked off to visitors. The only ladder I think has been changed is from the 2d to 3d deck on the Turret 2 tour route.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 03, 2019 2:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:21 pm
Posts: 3374
Location: equidistant to everywhere
A correction. All of Misouri's bollards were painted Navy blue in Sept 1945, including the ones near the bow. Only the chocks over the haze gray band in the front 1/3 of the ship were painted haze gray. The chocks in the rear 2/3 of the ship were also navy blue.


Getting the chocks to align correctly with railing on 1/200 scale Trumpeter Missouri and Iowa requires some work. There are two problems:

1. The real I-Beam stanchions are actually quite thick and beefy. On the real ship the outboard face of the stanchions are nearly at the deck edge, while the inboard face of the stanchions are aligned with the inboard face of the chocks. In other works the stanchions are nearly as thick as the chocks. Folded PE stanchions provided by Pontos and Eduard are still too thin, unless you use two PE stanchions glued back to back for each stanchion. Otherwise either the outboard dace of the stanchions are too far inboard, or the railings can not align with the backs of the chocks.

2. The chocks Trumpter provided were far too thick. So to align the railing with their back edges would force the railing to stand too far back from the deck edge. In reality the main part of the chocks were only as thick than the width of the waterway around the deck. The inboard bottom of the chocks actually protrudes inboard to enable the chock to straddle the waterway. Trumpeter made the chock thick enough so they didn't need the protrusion on the bottom to straddle the waterway. The problem is then you can't properly align the railing with the chocks without the railings standing too far inboard.


There are some 1/200 USN chocks available through 3D printing, but unfortunately these are not the right type or size for US fast battleships. So to fiddly modification to the trumpeter chocks would be needed to get this detail right.

_________________
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 03, 2019 3:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:21 pm
Posts: 3374
Location: equidistant to everywhere
Another thing, it seems there are a number of interpretation for the number and configuration of the tall whip antennae around Missouri’s superstructure in Sept 1945. Floating Dry Dock plans show 1 short whip antenna on a platform on the aft edge of the forefunnel, no whip antenna between the stacks, and 4 short whip entenna around the aft fire control tower.

Pontos suggest quite a few more, with 2 tall whip antennae between the stacks, 2 additional short antennae on the bulwark around aft sky lookout platform, and two more medium antennae on the aft side of the40mm bofor tub on either side of forward fire control tower.

Based on some pretty sharp photos of the Missouri when Missouri attended the Hudson River Navy review after V-J day, when Missouri had her naked painted on her side midship, Pontos’s interpretation seems to be closer to the mark, although not every additional antennnaPobtis depicted can clearly be made out.

_________________
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 03, 2019 5:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 3:41 pm
Posts: 2914
Location: Mocksville, NC
Chuck wrote:
Quote:
1. The real I-Beam stanchions are actually quite thick and beefy. On the real ship the outboard face of the stanchions are nearly at the deck edge, while the inboard face of the stanchions are aligned with the inboard face of the chocks. In other works the stanchions are nearly as thick as the chocks. Folded PE stanchions provided by Pontos and Eduard are still too thin, unless you use two PE stanchions glued back to back for each stanchion. Otherwise either the outboard dace of the stanchions are too far inboard, or the railings can not align with the backs of the chocks.


Here is a photo of BB-64 (museum) which shows the larger collapsible stanchion and its relative position in the waterway:
Attachment:
BB64 Deck Stanchion Detail.jpg
BB64 Deck Stanchion Detail.jpg [ 258.58 KiB | Viewed 4529 times ]

If it were feasible to have 3D printed stanchions provided, that would be the ultimate way to go. However, using the Pontos brass PE stanchions in place of the kit version will not really improve how these fit or look (Pontos is what I ended up using). This is a crap shoot and you probably won't like the odds or results.

As for the chocks, I used the kit supplied augmented with the Pontos brass posts and put them where the deck was stamped for them to go. I also used a custom ordered Pontos teak deck set (which I had collaborated with them in order to produce) and made no changes to the chock location as it was originally designed for use with the kit plastic main deck. A judgement call, I guess; something you have to really wonder if it's worth messing with in the overall scheme of things.

If I were to be working on the 1:200 kit now, YES! I would try to find someone to make 3D correctly shaped and printed stanchions. Chock locations and custom designed chocks? Don't know about that one!

Hope this helps,

Hank

_________________
HMS III
Mocksville, NC
BB62 vet 68-69

Builder's yard:
USS STODDARD (DD-566) 66-68 1:144, Various Lg Scale FC Directors
Finished:
USS NEW JERSEY (BB-62) 67-69 1:200
USN Sloop/Ship PEACOCK (1813) 1:48
ROYAL CAROLINE (1748) 1:47
AVS (1768) 1:48


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 03, 2019 7:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 4994
I made mine out of some really fine I beam I found somewhere (1: 192).


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2019 2:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 2:04 pm
Posts: 45
Location: Poland, Gdynia
Hello everyone.

I just started to build USS Missouri model 1/200 from GPM - polish paper models publisher and I'm looking for drawings for shell expansion or shell plating of the hull.
thanks for help
best regards
chris


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2019 8:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:21 pm
Posts: 3374
Location: equidistant to everywhere
Fortunately shell expansion plans for the Iowa class is not too much more difficult to find than a pink unicorn, with wings.

_________________
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2019 8:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 9:07 pm
Posts: 447
chazi wrote:
I just started to build USS Missouri model 1/200 from GPM - polish paper models publisher and I'm looking for drawings for shell expansion or shell plating of the hull.


I have been working on and off on putting together the shell plating data from various sources. Most of the blueprints I have are extremely difficult to read. I think there are eleven blueprints plus the mold loft data. Each one is about 40MB so its about a half GB. And then it has to be deciphered because most of it is hard to read.

This is some of my work in progress. I am still refining the XYZ coordinates. I have not started on the shell thicknesses and types of joints.

Attachment:
Screen Shot 2019-11-06 at 8.42.18 PM.png
Screen Shot 2019-11-06 at 8.42.18 PM.png [ 357.01 KiB | Viewed 2817 times ]

Attachment:
Screen Shot 2019-11-06 at 8.52.35 PM.jpg
Screen Shot 2019-11-06 at 8.52.35 PM.jpg [ 269.86 KiB | Viewed 2817 times ]


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Nov 09, 2019 2:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:21 pm
Posts: 3374
Location: equidistant to everywhere
Can anyone point me to pictures of stowed accommodation ladders on an WWII era major US warship?

Missouri seems to carry two accommodation ladders on board, stowed lying on their sides and flipped on one edge against the superstructure when not in use, I believe the upper and lower platforms for the ladders are detached and stowed separately. Are the railings/ma ropes also detached?

Another question, are the angle of the steps on the accommodation ladders fixed? Or do they pivot to allow the step to remain horizontal if the lower part of the accommodation ladders is pulled up or down depending on the ship’s draft?

If they are pivoted, do they lie flat when the ladders are stowed?

_________________
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Nov 09, 2019 3:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 4994
I'll have to look at my photos of the fwd accommodation ladder, stbd side against the wardroom area bulkhead. It looks as I recall as if the "steps" rotate and store flat as well as the railings. I'll look for the photos. Aft I recall seeing a photo somewhere with the accommodation laddes stowed awarthships aft of turret three.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Nov 09, 2019 3:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:21 pm
Posts: 3374
Location: equidistant to everywhere
One accommodation ladder is stowed against wardroom bulkhead on starboard side, the other is stowed against the aft end of the superstructure on the port side, where the superstructure tapers towards the aft 16” turret.

One pair of upper and lower platforms, and a bail is also stowed against the aft superstructure, on starboard side opposite the accommodation ladder. I assume these are for the aft accommodation ladder. I am not sure where their counterparts for the forward accommodation ladders are stowed.

The leadsman’s platforms were stowed against startboard side toward, just behind B turret barbette.

_________________
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 10, 2019 8:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 2:16 pm
Posts: 156
This is a picture I took on board Missouri. You can see that the steps are folded flat.

Larry


Attachments:
Missouri Ladder.png
Missouri Ladder.png [ 229.02 KiB | Viewed 2724 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 10, 2019 10:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 4994
Also note that the "railing" folds flat when stowed as well.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 5:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2015 9:27 pm
Posts: 43
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba; Canada
Just to add a bit more "use" information, and this is coming from working in the Trades. Generally speaking, there is the basic use/consumption of 2 oxygen cylinders to 1 acetylene cylinder. Even moreso when the use of a cutting torch/brass-axe is prevalent.

Also, the actual design of the acetylene bottle is considerably different than the rest, because it is at 'low pressure' compared to the tall ones that hold gasses. Acetylene is stored as a liquid, in a bottle that is filled with concrete. The porosity of the concrete allows the liquid to 'gas-off' slowly in a controlled manner, so that it is safer. Compared with the typical 'tall bottle' that holds gasses, those gasses are generally filled to ~2,200 psi. Some can be well over 4,000 psi.

Acetylene is generally stored in a bottle in its liquid state under 220 psi.

Hope that helps, and explains a bit why the acetylene bottles are physically different than the gas bottles. Another minor point to add, acetylene bottles are made out of mild-carbon steel, whereas the higher pressure 'gas' bottles are made out of armor steel.

(and, now that I realize that I was replying to a topic that appears to have been on page 199, my apologies to the masses for the completely "off-topic-at-the-moment" post) But, unless it bothers someone, I'll leave it up there simply in my attempt to contribute.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 7:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 11:30 pm
Posts: 252
Location: Fullerton, CA
That explains why the Acetylene bottles are so heavy.

James


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 4184
Sean_the_Nailer, higher pressure 'gas' bottles are not made out of armor steel(AR-Abrasion Resistant). check the links below.
Acetylene tanks http://www.hse.gov.uk/cdg/pdf/standard/da2a.pdf
Oxygen tanks manufactured
https://bizfluent.com/how-does-5022450- ... -made.html
http://www.madehow.com/Volume-7/Oxygen-Tank.html


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Nov 16, 2019 12:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 9:07 pm
Posts: 447
Sean_the_Nailer wrote:
Generally speaking, there is the basic use/consumption of 2 oxygen cylinders to 1 acetylene cylinder.


I'm surprised that it is just 2 to 1. I would have expected 5:2 from chemistry

5 (02) + 2 (HCCH) ==> 2 (H2O) + 4(CO2)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Nov 16, 2019 1:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 4994
The chemistry gets a little more mathematically complex as I suspect each bottle of O2 and Acetylene probably do not contain an equal number of molecules.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Nov 16, 2019 6:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 9:07 pm
Posts: 447
Fliger747 wrote:
The chemistry gets a little more mathematically complex as I suspect each bottle of O2 and Acetylene probably do not contain an equal number of molecules.


If they have the same volume and pressure they should be approximately the same.

PV = nRT


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 16, 2019 7:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 4184
edited by ddp


Last edited by Edited by DavidP on Tue Mar 12, 2024 11:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4843 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 ... 243  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 12 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

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group