CA-38 Diorama

[Rick E Davis]

Just for some background.

The earlier Mk 4 (solid base) 20-mm mounts could raise the gun up in height to compensate for gunner height and for various targets. The Mk 10 (tripod base) was a weight saving effort and there was no elevation for the gun, hence the use of a ring for the gunner to stand on. The Mk 10 mounts started to appear in about mid-late 1944 as a way to offset ever increasing weight due to additions to the ships. By the way, the twin 20-mm MK 24 mounts also used the same tripod base.

Too many models only provide the Mk 4 bases even if it is representing an USN ship in 1945 after a refit where they got the newer mounts.

[Angeliccypher]

Does anyone make aftermarket mk10 bases? Thanks for the information Rick!

[taskforce48]

I want to say that Voyager had them in their set of 20's. Plus, BWN used to include them in their PE. When I get home today, I will dig through the spares to confirm.

Matt

[Angeliccypher]

Thanks Matt. I want to try to use the top portion of the master ones if possible because I think they look better than folded brass.

I also found a solution to the seam under the 5" splinter shields. Flyhawk makes the porthole pieces. I will simply sand off the existing ones and replace them all. Now I can get to the seam with no issues.

[taskforce48]

Also looking at the rare starboard image of SF in her dazzle, I noticed that there is an external conduit/pipe that runs right along the seam line. Might save some time if you haven't tackled that side yet. I have a set of Lion Roar 20mms that have the tripod mount in it. It comes with 20 bases, I don't see why you couldn't use the Master gun and just mount it to the tripod base. I couldn't find the lion roar set online, found the one I have at a hobby shop about 8 years ago. But I found an Alliance Modelworks set here:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Alliance-Model- ... 1c4ab75355

Looks like it comes with 15 bases

HTH
Matt

[Rick E Davis]

Is this the "rare" 1944 view of USS SAN FRANCISCO you are talking about? I came across this view in the 80-G collection at NARA, I have yet to go through the Cruiser 19-LCM (BuShips Modification Documentation Yard photos) so I don't know if this photo is there. I didn't see it on the Navsource page for this ship. If any close-ups are desired and I get the time, I could post cropped blow-up shots of interest areas.

[Angeliccypher]

Hey Rick. There are a couple of areas of interest to me. I will likely stumble across more later.

-the catapult "towers" appear to have some sort of window facing the middle of the plane deck. I am looking for better shots of this and trying to determine if those were still present after her 10/44 refit.

-the height of the bow 20mm shields on the kit seems wrong. Do we know what the height should be?

-the height of the splinter shields on the boat handling deck also seems wrong in the kit. The photos I have seen today seems to have different heights in different spots but the angles play havoc trying to determine that

-the two 40mm gun tubs on the boat handling deck. Port side appears to have a opening facing aft, but the starboard side has no opening that I can see. If that is correct where did the gun crews get in and out of that tub and what if they needed more ammo?

[taskforce48]

-the catapult "towers" appear to have some sort of window facing the middle of the plane deck. I am looking for better shots of this and trying to determine if those were still present after her 10/44 refit.

They were still there, shows very clearly in this photo;
http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/038/0403888.jpg

Couldn't find any NO class shots easily online, but same style on Northampton class as seen in these photos;
http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/028/0402840.jpg
http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/027/0402742.jpg
http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/031/0403124.jpg

-the height of the bow 20mm shields on the kit seems wrong. Do we know what the height should be?

I can not locate an exact height, they appear to have their top level with the waterline. It seems that they are shorther in the front and taller in the back to match the sweep of the bows shear. The best I can come up with is they are at the same height as the MK10 mount. This pamphlet gives you some ideas of dimension;

This video also claims to be the SF and I believe it is;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvZ3-vyrtkQ
It gives a rare view of the backside of these tubs and is just a cool video.

-the height of the splinter shields on the boat handling deck also seems wrong in the kit. The photos I have seen today seems to have different heights in different spots but the angles play havoc trying to determine that

Based on this photo and another in WP#5, the shield that runs around the hangar top and the outward facing side of the 40mm tub is the height of USN 3 bar railing. You can see the back of the 40mm tub is slightly higher.
http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/038/0403858.jpg

-the two 40mm gun tubs on the boat handling deck. Port side appears to have a opening facing aft, but the starboard side has no opening that I can see. If that is correct where did the gun crews get in and out of that tub and what if they needed more ammo?

Based on the same photo above and it's high res version in WP#5, I believe that the back of the port tub is open facing aft wards. There is a similar picture in Hansen's book that shows most of the starboard tub's backside. Now it is possible that there was an opening but what I see in the photo is a couple of grab iron style ladders. I wouldn't think this would be there if there was an opening just a foot or two further aft which is the part that I can't see.

HTH,

Matt

[Angeliccypher]

Now that it has been a grueling process to finish my Nagara and she is almost finished I will be returning to this build hopefully in a few weeks.

I landed on doing her up the day after Typhoon Cobra when she sent out her search planes to look for survivors.

[Angeliccypher]

I have run into an issue and need some advise. Trying to fit the aft most structure on the deck I have run into an issue of fit that I cannot seem to solve.

You can see the guide marks for the structure on the deck here (kind of outlined in red)

When you put the structure on you see the deck is curved at this one area

The sides of the structure in all photos appear to be flush with the hull below it. Circled here you can see it tapers with the gap getting bigger the farther aft you go.

And finally on the back side of the structure it does not sit flush against the deck. If you force it down it causes the front corners to overhang the hull.

Any suggestions are most welcome!

[Dan K]

Styrene strip shims. Yes, a P-I-T-A.

[Angeliccypher]

That would solve most of the issues I think but what about the issue on the third picture? I am not sure shims will work there.

[MatthewB]

Wow!

The 1/700 kit has the EXACT SAME ISSUES as the 1/350 Trumpter Kit.

I imagine they just scaled down the parts from what it looks like.

The forward deck, with the gap between the 5"/25 splinter shields and the portholes... I am flummoxed over what to do about that gap as well.

For one thing, it will drastically alter the way that I build the ship (not adding the baseplate till MUCH LATER so that I can glue the decks down to assemble the superstructure prior to mounting the guns, priming, and painting.

MB

[Angeliccypher]

Wow!

The 1/700 kit has the EXACT SAME ISSUES as the 1/350 Trumpter Kit.

I imagine they just scaled down the parts from what it looks like.

The forward deck, with the gap between the 5"/25 splinter shields and the portholes... I am flummoxed over what to do about that gap as well.

For one thing, it will drastically alter the way that I build the ship (not adding the baseplate till MUCH LATER so that I can glue the decks down to assemble the superstructure prior to mounting the guns, priming, and painting.

MB

I came up with a fix for that seam under the 5"/25s earlier in the thread although I might not have explained it very well. Once I found that Flyhawk makes the porthole covers in 1/350 I elected to sand off all the porthole covers on the ship which I will replace later. This allowed me to access the seam much more easily. I am not sure if there is a solution in 1/700 though.

Another set of issues you will find with the aft deck section is that if you follow the guide lines it will sink below the top of the hull. The deck should sit flush. So you will need to raise it up. The building that faces into the plane handling area is also a tad short. The top of it should sit flush with the upper deck where the funnels are.

I might need to do something drastic like drill into the water plate and add something like brass rods to act like support stanchions under the area of the deck that is sagging. Do you guys think something like that would work?

This still does not solve my issue with hangar bulkheads tapering in away from the hull though....

[TimW42]

Wow....so when are they going to engineer a kit we can just build?



Tim W

[Angeliccypher]

I was going to say "about the same time as the Dragon USS Atlanta gets released". But I understand their newer stuff like the Eskimo and Belfast do not have those issues.

[MatthewB]

Greeeaaat... The deck is supposed to sit flush with the hull?

Yet another thing I screwed up on my 1/700 build (that needs to be corrected on the future build).

And another reason to change the order of the build from the instructions.

MB

[Angeliccypher]

I could be wrong, but inside pictures I have seen it looks flush to me.

[MatthewB]

When I get my USS San Francisco Warship Pictorial, I will have a look.

We seem to be tracking very similar builds, but in different scales (although my SF is in 1942 Outfit - But I do have the 1944 Outfit to be built, eventually).

MB

[Dan K]

A concave deck is a bit of a surprise, for sure. If anything, it should have some camber to it.

Yeah, a couple of inserts will work; you just have to file it/them down at an incline at the ends to match the gap. It will take a lot of intermittent sanding and test fitting.