1/144 Jorge Juan (ex USS McGowan)

[Fliger747]

Nicholas Monsarrat has vivid descriptions life aboard a corvette in his classic "The Cruel Sea". Pretty wild! Back to the days of Iron Men and Wooden ships I remember singing a song with my RCN mates " Hearts of Oaks are our ships, Salty Tars are our men". Something I expect they inherited from Royal Navy. Can you imagine going aloft rounding the Horn to reef or shorten sail?

[JIM BAUMANN]

OK--
I have been catching up on all your really very excellent works!

The 'oil-canning ' is both alarming on the 1:1 ship -- and spectacular 144 times smaller!

BIG Bravo !

Best wishes
Jim Baumann

[Fliger747]

Willie:

I don't know how reliable that this drawing is, of Fletcher, but it shows the top of the forward hatch as parallel to the base line, which was somewhere in my past memories.

Your masterpiece is coming along very nicely! Regards: Tom

[Rick E Davis]

I don't have a definitive answer about the forward hatch, but I do think it was at least partially parallel to the waterline. The BIW drawing appears to show that (the attached image is very light). Trying to find a good broadside view of this area WITHOUT crew standing around it, is difficult.

[Willie]

Hi there Tom, Marijn, Meister Baumann, Mr. Davis and all,

Thanks very much for your remarks and the excellent pictures.

The height of these fore and aft hatches seems to be different depending on the ship, as it happens in many other items in this large destroyer class.

I have seen some other pictures on board some other ships, but they are not too useful as many are somehow blurr. As the pictures that I have of Jorge Juan are not conclussive, I have based my hatches on the pictures I took on board USS The Sullivans. I took some measures on the screen, and in this case I would say the hatch follows the deck line.

Actually, after studying the pictures supplied by Mr. Davis, I would say it is the same case on board USS Stoddard, only that in this case the deck line is partially covered by the upper line of the hand railing.

Nice going and very best regards from this side,

Willie.[/size]

[Willie]

Hi all again.

This week was hatch week for the second week in a row, this time the rest of the six types that Fletchers seemed to display. Very easy and entertaining to build, using only some Evergeen scraps and generic PE hand wheels. As all of the round hatches seemed to be similar in width, I standarized them to 4.8 mm. Evergreen tube.

With all these new elements placed in position, the fantail looks way better:

Over to the next post,

Willie.[/size]

[Willie]

After this, I thought it would be advisable to set the whole hatch set in place to check that they matched their final positions all over the different decks, so I put together around them the main sections all along the ship.

With this this thing starts looking like a true Fletcher class, with the only drawback that none of these sections is complete yet, small details to be added here, there and everywhere.

I hope you like it anyhow, and very best regards from this side of the oceans,

Willie.[/size]

[BB62vet]

Willie,

Your model is coming together nicely - good work!! These little details certainly make the model realistic - you've exceeded the bar in this department!!

Hank

[bwross11]

Willie,
The model is coming along very nicely! With all your planned details inclusions that is going to be one spectacular presentation.

Bravo Zulu

[Fliger747]

Willie:

Steady and excellent progress. When all is in final warpaint the myriad if small textures and details will begin to harmonize into a satisfying whole. A real warship of this era in 144 scale has nary a few square centimeters of vacant space and you are doing a great job of researching and filling things in.

Perhaps Hank would know, having crewed on the twin 3" 50 mount as to whether or not (I'm not an expert on these) there was a single elevating motor such as on the quad Bofors and the twin 5" mounts. The 5" barrels though not in a common sleeve, were driven off the same shaft by a single motor and could only be decoupled for maintenance.

Your mechanism for the towed array (Fanfair?) is particularly convincing!

Cheers: Tom

[Willie]

Hi there Hank, Bruce, Tom and all,

Thanks for your encouraging remarks. If such talented modelers give a passing grade to my work, then I can give it one too.

Perhaps Hank would know, having crewed on the twin 3" 50 mount as to whether or not (...) there was a single elevating motor such as on the quad Bofors and the twin 5" mounts. The 5" barrels though not in a common sleeve, were driven off the same shaft by a single motor and could only be decoupled for maintenance.

No idea at all that Hank had ever had such an interesting position on board USS Stoddard.

I am not sure about this, but waiting for Hank�s info, I would say it worked the way you mean. I have very little graphic information about this, as the elements of interest are covered by another structure just between the two gun carriages, but I have found this picture of a virtually dismantled mount, showing in red (obviously a museum display) what I think is the solution for the problem. There seems to be only single elevation drive motor, along with transmissions linking both guns:

Another picture of a more advanced mount model shows the very same elements, what confirms the previous pic:

I hope it is of some help.

Nice going and very best regards from the North Atlantic,

Willie.[/size]

[Fliger747]

Willie:

This have to be just about the most possibly complicated mount to construct, and to do three of them!

Cheers: Tom

[BB62vet]

Willie wrote:

I am not sure about this, but waiting for Hank�s info, I would say it worked the way you mean.

Willie - Yes, I was a 2nd loader & phone talker on Mt. 33 in 1967 during our WestPac Cruise - we did do some combat firing during that period. You are right - the mount has ONE elevation motor that is coupled to the transmission units via axles. As Tom stated a very complicated piece of equipment to try to replicate in miniature. I managed to get about 85% of the relative pieces in my 3D parts - you have to determine what's important and what can be left off in my opinion. I don't know how the commercial part makers arrive at their 1:350 scale parts - a bit too convoluted IMHO.

Anyhow, here is another picture of my 1/144 scaled 3"/50 R.F. dual gun mount -

Mt. 33 & After Deckhouse (cropped)

Hope this helps!

Hank

[Willie]

Hi there Hank and all,

(...)here is another picture of my 1/144 scaled 3"/50 R.F. dual gun mount -

Excellent progress in your 3"/50 mounts, splendid, intricate in detail, and as far as I can see, extremely realistic. Mine are not that complete, but once again I cannot compete with a computer programmer armed with a 3D printer.

Anyhow, I am also almost finished with mine. All the elements minus the rails are already made and painted. This week I have finished the main carriages, giving a light wash of medium grey (50%-50% of Humbrol Matt 79 and 64) for the shadows instead of the somehow darker mixture I had been using previously. The effect is even better, I would say. After this I applied a dry brush in the original Humbrol Matt 64, with some lights here and there, and painted the decks with 3 very clear coats of Matt 79. Here you are the product, ready to receive the guns and the rest of the elements. The white unpainted sections are necessary to apply the glue.

The Mk.37 fire control is also finished with the antenna set in place, washed, dry brushed and painted:

And also the hatches, again with a wash in medium grey and a dry brush afterwards:

I will have to paint some of the handwheels in different colors, but I have to find out which ones, and in what color.

And that�s all for now. I will try to add details to the 3"/50 this weekend.

Nice going and very best regards from the North Atlantic,

Willie.[/size]

[JIM BAUMANN]

excellent looking paintwork

...." the plastic bits look like they are made of metal...!! "

great sharp work!

JB

[Fliger747]

Willie:

The 3" 50 mounts have really come to life with your painting techniques! Such a complex piece of equipment. Having built a fair number of MK 37's (1:192) yours look very good. Keep up the good work!

Tom

[Willie]

Hi there Jim, Tom and all friend modelers.

Thanks for your remarks. If such experienced modelers give me a "like" the work has to be acceptable.

Now that the hull is as good as completely finished I am considering to build the sonar dome next. I already know how (pretty easy job), but I need the measures and a reliable scheme. The only information that I have is only a bad sketch that shows the dome as long as (correction, longer than) the artillery mounts, while the docking plan shows it as considerably shorter..

Could somebody give me some info on this ???

TIA, and very best regards from this side,

Willie.

[pascalemod]

just wanna say seeing the hull work on oil canning - it is sublime. Well done! Wonderful to see attention to the hull, as part in most contact with the elements it always saddens me to see it ignored and you really went all out. I think the painstaking detailing will be well worth it!

[Rick E Davis]

Willie,

USS McGOWAN (DD-678) at the time she was transferred to Spain in 1960, had the SQS-32 sonar (actually an upgrade of the SQS-4 Mod 4, w/RDT, done in 1959). The attached view from her BGP (dated January 1959) shows she had the "shorter" dome between frames 50 and 55. This was the 100-in long dome, with the transducer at frame 52. Her sonar operating frequency didn't require the longer 185-in long dome. Some FLETCHER's, mostly DDE's (12 out of 18 units), got ShipAlt DD448-1180 with a 185-in dome (or 100-in dome) in 1962-63 timeframe, which relocated the sonar dome to Frame 25, forward closer to the bow. Experience and more importantly, the cost of moving the sonar suite, didn't justify modifying any additional FLETCHER's (only 10 Fleet Destroyer FLETCHER's were so modified). The rest of the Post-WWII Korean War mobilized FLETCHER's retained their sonars (either the 100-in or 185-in long domes) at the Frame 52 location (like McGOWAN). In the early 1960's, the USN was rapidly decommissioning or transferring them to NRT the Fleet Destroyer configured FLETCHER's. If it wasn't for the Vietnam War, all but the DDE's would have been out of active service by mid-1960's.

An aside; USS CASSIN YOUNG (DD-793) had a 185-in dome at the Frame 52 location.

[Willie]

Howdy Mr. Davis and all,

Thanks very much for your prompt answer.

USS McGOWAN (DD-678) at the time she was transferred to Spain in 1960, had the SQS-32 sonar (actually an upgrade of the SQS-4 Mod 4, w/RDT, done in 1959). The attached view from her BGP (dated January 1959) shows she had the "shorter" dome between frames 50 and 55. This was the 100-in long dome, with the transducer at frame 52. Her sonar operating frequency didn't require the longer 185-in long dome. (...)

And thanks a million once more for N-th. time for this exceptional information. After knowing the sonar model and the measures, I need only the plan of this dome. I have found only one picture of this SQS-32, this one :

It seems to be elliptical and symmetrical, but I am not sure. Would you (or anybody else) have some more detailed pics or plans of this dome ?

Again TIA, and very best regards from this side,

Willie.