3D Parts Development for possible T-3 Tanker Project - 1/144

[BB62vet]

I've hesitated beginning a new thread with 2 others in progress, but Wha Hail!!! as Tom says!! So, here is the scoop -

With two 1/144 scale models in progress, I thought a tanker might just be interesting enough to do as a long term project (well - all my projects are LONG TERM!!!) If they weren't, I'd probably croak....

So, over the last few months I've been collecting plans, info, data, whatever on USN 1940s era T-3 fleet tankers and have been doing 3D design/printing of various parts intermixed with some LSM/R stuff and DD-566 stuff. Of course with NARA closed to the Taxpayers (but NOT to the Brandon staff and their kindred loonies in their constant pursuit of going after anything/everything sacred to our nation), it's rather difficult to find pertinent drawings/plans, etc. for various parts of these ships as quite a few of the regular modelers on SMF (not the forum trolls) are also finding out.

In spite of this politically imposed imposition, I've settled on one particular ship and having secured a scaled full size drawing (actually downloaded from NARA online - take that Brandon!!!) of said vessel, I've proceeded with designing and printing various parts as described above. For security reasons (trolls abound, take caution ) I will refrain from mentioning the ship in question at present. It is however, a T3-S2-A1 fleet tanker, CIMERRON class laid down in 1945. If this comes to fruition, it will be depicted during the 1950s as I'm not into the WWII era period of modeling (except for the LSM/R).

So, just a few of the parts I've been designing/printing and stowing away are:

I have quite a few more completed, but this is a good sampling of completed and printed parts. Sorry, my actual parts photos are not quite presentable but I'm working on that. Also, I have in hand a couple of the gun tub assemblies (minus the mounts) which were rather involved in design -

Tom Falley has been consulting with me on these designs and we exchange designs as needed, so his work on 40mm gun assemblies has come in handy. Slight modifications are usually rule of thumb in addition to rescaling as we build in different scales. NOTE: if some of these items seem out of scale or parts of those items seem a bit large, there's a reason for that and it has to do with 3D printing. Along those lines, I'm now on board with the use of Rapid Black resin as I'm finding out (Tom has been using this all along) that it produces a higher degree of detail than the other two gray types of resin I was using - most of my parts are printed in the older resin but that's ok - they are still acceptable, but the newer parts will have a higher degree of detail in them. And, with Tom's help I've finally achieved Anchor Chain Nirvana - printing a fully flexible, individually linked anchor chain - sized both for STODDARD and the T-3 to boot!

I will update this thread from time to time, but don't intend to constantly update this as that would tend to get way too involved at this stage.

Hank

[Fliger747]

Hank:

Sometimes the project once it gains some interest, starts to propel a life of it's own. It's fun to work on these small objects, completion of each little model has a degree of satisfaction. Though doing the hull is probably less than 10% of the total ship construction, it's somewhat daunting. Hence an awful lot of otherwise competent builders try to buy a hull or start with a kit. Modifying a kit hull can actually take longer than starting from scratch, as you well know. I had the APA hull from over 50 years before, but it needed some modification also.

If you feel like your close vision is going haywire and small motions are cramping you hands, take a week and knock out the hull! It will take about as much time as three gun tubs, four winches and a 3"50.

Cheers! Tom

[BB62vet]

Tom,

Thanks!! Your comments are quite true! As for the hull design, etc. - I've run into a slight problem with that:
The one sheet of plans for this particular ship do not include the hull body plan. I do have the one T-3 plan that TFD offers but the body plan that accompanies the BoGP doesn't really reference that particular ship, i.e. the stations on the body plan don't have a matching location on the plan view of the hull. So, even though I have scanned it into the CPU and scaled it, it doesn't really help at this point. I guess, based solely on the dimension of an individual station, you may be able to determine where along the length of the hull plan that station may go, it's an "iffy" proposition. Once again, "Thanks, Brandon, for making life even MORE difficult!!!!"

But, in my never-ending search for Trut, Justice, and the American Way (of ship modeling ) - I have come across online a series of 1940s era cargo ship drawings that can be found on NARA - if you are building a model of such. I stumbled across this a couple nights ago and (of course!!) didn't take the time to write down or bookmark how I arrived at this locale, but at least SOME info had been digitized prior to the Curtain of Doom coming into play.

Here are a few more items I've also designed/modified/printed and stowed away:

As you said, I do find designing these items and seeing the result is quite satisfying (much like the self or instant gratification of Gen. X a few years back )

Hank

[Fliger747]

Hank:

How common were the T-3 hulls, were they all the same? I had a little issue with the ARL with regards to the stations and the corresponding points along the hull. As it turns out for a ship that looked very boxy, no two sections were alike. However I was saved by each cross section having a frame number! Do your plans or sections have frame numbers?

I'm sorry, despite a certain privilege you have assumed the Brandon Associates have priority on NARA resources.

Good luck matching them up!

Tom

[Iceman 29]

Nice drawings, Hank. Very accurate.

[BB62vet]

Hank:
How common were the T-3 hulls, were they all the same? I had a little issue with the ARL with regards to the stations and the corresponding points along the hull. As it turns out for a ship that looked very boxy, no two sections were alike. However I was saved by each cross section having a frame number! Do your plans or sections have frame numbers?
I'm sorry, despite a certain privilege you have assumed the Brandon Associates have priority on NARA resources.
Good luck matching them up!
Tom

Tom,
Well, prior to JUMBOIZATION of the T-3's, I'm guessing that the hulls were pretty much similar. There are several "classes" of T-3 tankers - CIMERRON (AO-22) being sort of the lead ship for others to follow. Other classes were derived from that basic design with variations in deckhouses, armaments, etc. - whether the hulls actually were different, I don't know. LOA and extreme width in the specs gives a general clue (same or similar) but without being able to print out what plans I do have at full size (same scale) and overlay them, you really can't say.

The plans generally do have the frame nos. notated on centerline from fore to aft. In casually looking over the hull plans, I "thought" initially that the center section was basically a long box with the same shape/size. But, that may/may not always be the case and you have to really look at the body plan to see where the subtle variations of the lower hull begin to change. I do have a couple very good scans of two of the T-3's, but one is slightly distorted as it was a photo and not an actual plan that had been copied so I can't use that - shame because it has a lot of detail. One other one may be the one I use and resize carefully to get it scaled to 1/144. If its companion plan view has corresponding station marks, then this might work. I'm fairly certain that the hull length/width, depth is the same as the T-3 I'm interested in building. This will need to be ascertained for sure. Something the Brandon camp would find impossible to accomplish!

Iceman 29 - Thanks so much!! Yes, I enjoy the 3D design work almost as much as the actual construction, etc.!! At this point I'm finding (like everyone else, I guess) that getting the right information to begin with is a major time-consuming effort. And, always trying to learn a bit more about the actual 3D design program I'm using does eat up time, as well. I'm still fighting with the layering/colors in this program and each time I think I have solved it - I haven't!!!

Today I'm reprinting an after deckhouse that sits next to the ship's stack on the stbd side - it houses the ship's trash bin & burner and my 1st edition came out fair, but not good. So, I did a bit more redrawing/design and we'll see what happens.

Hank

[Fliger747]

Looking at the T-3 available on HNSA I was interested to find their frame numbers started from the stern! Those drawings had quite a few detailed cross sections, if not hull lines. One did give a range of frame numbers for which they were applicable, a fairly long straight section. This area allowed the stretch eventually. It would be interesting to find out if the plugged ship was faster or slower afterwards.

Is this your first scratch hull?

Cheers: Tom

[BB62vet]

Looking at the T-3 available on HNSA I was interested to find their frame numbers started from the stern! Those drawings had quite a few detailed cross sections, if not hull lines. One did give a range of frame numbers for which they were applicable, a fairly long straight section. This area allowed the stretch eventually. It would be interesting to find out if the plugged ship was faster or slower afterwards. Is this your first scratch hull?
Cheers: Tom

Tom,
I have that one (USS NAVASOTA) downloaded, as well. It might work as the hull length/width are within a couple inches of my particular T-3 hull. I have made a Plank on Bulkhead Sloop of War, but this would be a first scratch-built steel warship hull for me. I think using a centerline bulkhead with transverse section bulkheads will work well as long as they're spaced properly and adjoining edges are tapered/sanded correctly to get a good, snug fit. More than likely sheet styrene for the flat sides/bottom and basswood planks on bottom curves/bow/stern. All puttied and sanded smooth, etc.

Yes, frames are numbered from the aft on my T-3 plans, as well. Don't know why as most warships are numbered from the bow. Since both the plan views and sheer elevation do have frame nos. notated, this may actually be workable - I may need to scale up/down as necessary to adjust the frame to the exact size at that frame. Shape would not be affected as it would be scaled proportionally. Well, something to play around with!

Hank

[BB62vet]

Hank, are you doing a jumboized Cimarron Class Fleet Oiler or non-jumbo as I have the jumboized version sheer/body plans in 2 parts fore & aft if you do not have & need?

DP -
Thanks, but NO MUMBO, NO JUMBO!!!!

Hank

[DrPR]

European shipbuilders numbered frames from the stern, but I haven't seen any American plans numbered that way. Interesting.

Phil

[BB62vet]

European shipbuilders numbered frames from the stern, but I haven't seen any American plans numbered that way. Interesting.
Phil

Phil,
Yes, I checked all the T-2/T-3 plans I have on hand and all begin at the stern and work forward.

Hank

[Fliger747]

The T series tankers and the C series freighters were maritime commission designs? The C-series freighter hulls seem to follow the standard US convention and begin with frame numbers at the bow. Perhaps this had something to do with the engineering package being at the stern rather than midships. Design a standard Tanker stern and add whatever in front of it at later date? As most of the hull body forward was just product storage compartments, it would be easy to modify as necessary.

Tom

[DrPR]

I wonder what the origin of the C series was? Did the British commission the design to be produced in American yards? That would explain the frame numbering.

Phil

[KimmerWerft]

Hank-
Good to see you working on a T-3/CIMARRON class ship. I served on the USS CANISTEO (AO-99) in the mid-late 80's. It was one of the last of that class operated by the Navy and was a hard working ship for over 40 years.

The post-jumbo plans should be useable for the bow shape as that part of the hull was not changed. Those same plans can also be used for the stern, although the original hulls had a single centerline rudder and the jumbo conversion had two rudders--one each at an angle behind each screw. Other than this the basic stern hull shape was unchanged from the original.

The frame shapes should be pretty much the same once you get to full form of the the mid-body.

I used to have a pre-jumbo T-3 plans booklet that I picked up somewhere, but donated it to a museum a few years ago.

John

[BB62vet]

John,

Thanks so much for the comments and it's nice to have a T-3 Vet checking on things here on SMF!!! I've PM'd you re. the T-3's, so Heads Up on that.

Hope you follow this thread if it does come about - still in the pre-preliminary stages.


Phil/Tom -

I've been looking for info re. WHO designed this class but still working on it - nothing yet other than the shipyards that actually did the construction. I have no idea who designed these ships, etc.

Hank

[Fliger747]

Allegedly they were designed by the US Maritime Commission during the immediate pre war period as ships which could be viable as commercial vessels, both the C series cargo vessels and T series Tankers. A great number were modified for employment for the Navy from AKA's APA's, Tenders and even Escort Carriers. They were apparently successful designs as many continued in Naval or commercial service for decades after WWII. They employed a variety of power plants depending on availability and end use. Turbines were not universally employed as the cutting of reduction gears was a production bottleneck. Even "warships" such as DE's variously used turbines, turbo electric drive, or Diesels for the same reason.

Tom

[Guest]

I've been looking for info re. WHO designed this class but still working on it - nothing yet other than the shipyards that actually did the construction. I have no idea who designed these ships, etc.

I found the following pointer in "Ships for Victory" by Fredric C. Lane, 1951, 2001, John's Hopkins University Press

"before 1941 the only tankers built with Maritime Commission aid were those of the high speed Cimarron class, the T3-S2-A1, which were built with designs furnished by the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, and for which the Maritime Commission paid only the cost of defense features."

Hope that helps in your quest

George

[BB62vet]

I found the following pointer in "Ships for Victory" by Fredric C. Lane, 1951, 2001, John's Hopkins University Press
"before 1941 the only tankers built with Maritime Commission aid were those of the high speed Cimarron class, the T3-S2-A1, which were built with designs furnished by the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, and for which the Maritime Commission paid only the cost of defense features."
Hope that helps in your quest
George

George,
Thanks so much - sort of parallels the info I've found on Auke Visser's Tanker website (http://www.aukevisser.nl/t2tanker/) - he's got a lot of info on all the T-1/T-2/T-3 tankers. At this point, I may delve into the ESSO end of things just to see if there's anything about the actual design/engineering firms involved.

The T3-S2-A1 CIMARRON class was modified into several other later classes with minor differences in armaments, deck arrangements, etc. The hulls were pretty much std. it appears.

Today I've been printing/reprinting various parts as I've finished the design and like Tom F. these usually require 2 to 3 editions before a final print is correct. Simpler items usually work out the 1st edition. Anyhow, here are some additional design pictures (item description is part of the picture) -

The block & tackle failed to print so that's going to be a 2nd attempt for sure. The davit and upper block printed, but the lines & lower block/hook will require some further modifications.

Admiralty projects will take time away from modeling today.....

Hank

[Fliger747]

Hank:

Looks like you are making significant progress here and generating some interest. One of the great things is sharing your research and development. at this scale it's not currently a 3D project but a hybrid. Eventually for these larger models a greater degree of printing of large items will be feasible for the proletariat, but waiting for the latest technology is without end. Godot never arrives...

Cheers: Tom

[mikegr]

Nice work. some of these also can be used in other commercial ships with little or no modifications.