The Ship Model Forum

Hi Douglas,

Just reviewing your work midships. Very nice. My kit's deck was deeply indented behind the 20mm gun shields (near the practice loader). How was your deck? Did you sand it flat and rebuild from the deck up, or was you deck better than mine?

You have certainly done a better job of getting those shields removed than I have. I figure I am in for a major patch job on my deck.

Doug, your work is inspirational. Nicest I've seen in a long while. I've given up comparing my work to yours and I sleep better at night now.

So how are you going to display it?

I think I solved the scoreboard problem on my ship, or at least came close. I found a 1/72 scale Corsair decal sheet that had just the right size kill markings. The silhouettes are chips and bits of white decals that I nudged finessed into place one piece at a time. It's not exact, but I think it works.



Pat

Pat
It worked!!!
They look VERY good.

Bombay Daily wrote:Hi Douglas,

Just reviewing your work midships. Very nice. My kit's deck was deeply indented behind the 20mm gun shields (near the practice loader). How was your deck? Did you sand it flat and rebuild from the deck up, or was you deck better than mine?

You have certainly done a better job of getting those shields removed than I have. I figure I am in for a major patch job on my deck.

Muuu......, I didn't have any problem with the deck. I guess there is something wrong with the moulding you have in hand. If you don't have many attached on the deck, I think it would be a good idea to make some improvement.

Regards,

Douglas

bountyjumper wrote:Doug, your work is inspirational. Nicest I've seen in a long while. I've given up comparing my work to yours and I sleep better at night now.

So how are you going to display it?

I think I solved the scoreboard problem on my ship, or at least came close. I found a 1/72 scale Corsair decal sheet that had just the right size kill markings. The silhouettes are chips and bits of white decals that I nudged finessed into place one piece at a time. It's not exact, but I think it works.

Pat

Hahaha, you meant notorious. Glad to know that you have the markings done. It looks good to me !!

I would display it like this. I ordered a glass display cover. And I would support the model with two knobs with screws and nuts. I bought the knobs in IKEA funiture shop.

Regards,

Douglas

outstanding build.

I...LIKE IT!!!

Dave

Some more .........

Looks great Douglas! What are you planning to use for the rigging - silk thread?

Cheers,

Bill

Douglas,

You do superior work, you are a heck of a lot more skilled than me, but I'm going to point out some details about CHEVALIER foremast configuration during her career ... July 1942 through October 1943 ... that don't agree with your mast. You can choose to modify the mast or not, that is up to you, but you do museum quality work and I sure would like to see your build as accurate as possible. I'm not sure what you are using as your source for the foremast layout, but it is a combination of early war SC and SG radars, which are correct, with IFF antennas that are not.

CHEVALIER (DD-451) on 24 October 1942 as she departed for Operation Torch. Note the foremast equipment, likely the equipment she had going to the South Pacific. Note the antennas installed and other arrangements. There is a TBS antenna on the port yardarm, but no other antenna on the starboard yardarm at this time. Also, the upper yardarms were not installed until very late in the war on FLETCHERS ... mid-1945 ... and were much shorter in length than you have here.


NICHOLAS (DD-449) on 24 August 1942, BIW-built sister to CHEVALIER on 24 August 1942 shortly before she left for the South Pacific. Note her foremast and the foremasts of a couple other unidentified FLETCHERS behind her. The "BL" IFF radar antenna has been installed on the starboard yardarm. The BL IFF system was installed starting in December 1942 on new construction and was sent out to the forward area in "kits" for installation on deployed destroyers. It was very common to be seen on FLETCHERS in the summer of 1943.


WALLER (DD-466) in August 1943 another South Pacific FLETCHER. Note the BL antenna.


BEALE (DD-471) on 31 December 1942 being completed at New York Navy Yard showing a new installation of the BL antenna,


PICKING (DD-685) on 4 October 1943 at New York Navy Yard as completed with the SC-2 radar. The BL antenna had problems with interference with other radar equipment and was replaced with a shorter version as seen in this photo. Note the location as installed at this time. This SINGLE antenna was moved outboard to the location you have starting I think in early 1944 (not sure when and doesn't appear to have been moved outboard on all FLETCHERS). Late in the war two of these antennas were installed as you have them ... starting late in 1944.


CONY (DD-508) in December 1948 in mothballed condition. Note the upper "yardarm" extensions for the relocated trunk lights (maybe NANCY gear).


Bottom-line, depending on when you are modeling CHEVALIER, she would either have the BL antenna (I have one very grainy image of CHEVALIER that "appears" to show the BL installed in August 1943) or no IFF antenna yet installed.

Ya know, I'll just bet that when Douglas is done with his build and puts that sweet heart on display, everybody who sees it will sigh and say, "that is such a great model, it's like something you'd see in a museum, it's such a shame he ruined it by messing up that radar and all those antennas."

Douglas, you should be darned proud of that work. I can't wait to see what that beauty looks like when you are done with it. I'd be happy if I could come anywhere near the quality of your work.

My Optivisor is off to you, sir.

Bob

Bob,

If you wish to build a model to represent a proud ship like CHEVALIER as she really looked, it matters. Douglas is one of the best modelers I have seen. I feel it is important to show a subject as accurately as possible if your objective is to model that ship. Douglas has taken the time to go the extra step in scratch building many items he didn't need to to improve his model. I'm trying to help with information on the details for CHEVALIER that are not available in say Squadron's books or on-line. He can choose to do so or not. Bob, if you just wish to build a kit for fun it doesn't matter, just build a kit out-of-the-box and refer to a Squadron profile book for fuzzy information ... I don't care.

I know that IPMS judging doesn't care all that much about the accuracy of a subject ... they are more concerned about the smoothness of seams and how good the paint job is. But, I think that teaching others about the history of these real ships is more important. CHEVALIER has been one of my favorite ships from WWII.

From DANFS:

On 6 October 1943 Chevalier, O'Bannon, and Selfridge (DD-357) intercepted nine Japanese destroyers and destroyer transports attempting to evacuate troops from Vella Lavella, Solomon Islands. Although greatly outnumbered, the American destroyers attacked. After firing half of their torpedies and scoring several hits with gunfire, the group continued to steam into the line of fire of enemy torpedoes in order to keep their own guns bearing. At approximately 2205 Chevalier was struck on the port bow by an enemy torpedo which tore her bow off to the bridge, throwing the ship entirely out of control. The destroyer O'Bannon which was following Chevalier could not avoid the damaged destroyer and rammed her in the after engine room, flooding that space and stopping Chevalier's port shaft. While making preparations to abandon ship, Chevalier's skipper ordered the torpedoes in her tubes to be fired at the Japanese destroyer Yugumo. The burning Japanese ship blew up soon after. By 2326 it was apparent that Chevalier could not be saved and "Abandon Ship!" was ordered. Her crew was picked up by O'Bannon's boats, and Chevalier was sunk the following day by a torpedo from a friendly destroyer. Her severed bow was located about a mile to the west and was sunk with depth charges. Chevalier lost 54 killed, and suffered 36 wounded.

Dear Bob and Rick,

Thank you for the compliments you two gave to me. I am overwhelmed indeed.

I think you both are right and actually you two are in the same direction. I think I am the trouble guy. Would you mind giving me some time to tell my story ? At first I wanted to build a Fletcher with square bridge. That was some years ago and it looked the only choice are those R/C ones which I would need to build most of the things by my own. Well, that would be too much for me. Then came this Revell one. Great news as it is plastic. Bad that it is the round bridge. I waited and heard that Nautilus would come up with a conversion set. Well, a disappointment seeing the photos of it, so I decided to just build the round bridge version, as it is, without any research work at all. I said I am the trouble because I have a kind of contradicting theories in my mind. I wanted to build something simple, as it is, but I always find the parts not detailed enough and want to replace them with photo etched parts or self made parts. This happened the first time with the gun director. I built it wrong and Rick gave me a lot of information. What Bob said was actually a relief to me, taking me out of the trouble, figuring what to do. Another factor leading to the inaccuracy is the use of both Nautilus and Eduard photo etched sets. I guess the Nautilus set is designed for a late version Fletcher. One with no research work would simply be misleaded. Me is a perfect example.

Rick is right, if I have such skill to do a museum quality work, it would be a level higher if I could build accurately.

Bob is right, struggling for 100% accuracy is sometime very tiring. It would be easier to build with the information on hand, rather than making modification after the build.

With Rick's information, and Bob's understanding, I am sure I would build a causal model to my best accuracy.

Regards,

Douglas

Rick,

Do you mean removing all those I circled in red ?

Regards,

Douglas

Red Devil Squadron wrote:Looks great Douglas! What are you planning to use for the rigging - silk thread?

Cheers,

Bill

Yes, Bill, silk thread, as I did the railing. I used a clip for a steady tension while I fixed the silk thread with instant glue. Photos later.

Regards,

Douglas

Douglas,

Really looks SHARP!!!!!!!!! Doesn't look too hard to remove a couple of those pieces.

And Rick, VERY VERY good photos. I've saved them for my stalled build. Thank you. This whole thing is all about learning about ships and equipnet of the past. It's all facinating. And me a "helicopter pilot".

Regards
Steve

Nice , crisp and steady work!.


She is a big one!! have been watching...

JIm B

Douglas,

I applaud your work and your attitude, sir.

I think there can come a point when a kit can be transformed from just so many bits and pieces, into something that becomes a historical representation of a moment in time. Your Chevalier, and the work you have put into her invokes that feeling in me, because I can see in your building technique, a desire to respect the ship and her brief, heroic wartime career.

I scuba dive and sometimes when I am on a wreck, I seem to be able to "feel" its' history. Your model has given me the same effect, and for that I thank you.