USS Onondaga - Part Deux -1/96th scale

[Roscoe]

I'm going to be deconstructing the USS Onondaga in 1/96th scale in this thread, not only for my own personal pleasure, but to be offered as a frame only kit if there is any interest. Now there is a twist to this, as I'll be collaborating with my buddy Owen (tea monster) on this, who will be making, and offering 1/96th scale 3D printed parts, such as turrets, turret decks, stacks, and whatever else he wants to add, to go along with this. And as an added twist, as I deconstruct the CAD model, I welcome input from you model builders, static or RC, to offer your ideas on what you like or dislike, when it comes to aspects of building, construction methods, materials, etc. In other words, your ideas and suggestions can, and will be incorporated into the final design of this. And for those who's ideas make the cut, so to speak, they will be rewarded somehow, someway.

So to start with, here's a couple pics of the basic model I'll be dissecting, which I'll start cutting up in the next few days.

Also, check out Owen's USS Onondaga WIP thread located here:viewtopic.php?f=27&t=108311





-Dean

[herrmill]

Sweet! It would be even better in 1:72.

[Roscoe]

OK Chuck, I get the hint. So I guess there will be a bigger 1/72nd scale RC version once I finish this one.

So after a few hours of work this morning, I have the basic deck framed, notched and sheeted. Once we get the turrets and stacks settled, I'll pop in some holes in the sheeting for those. Basically, the center longerons and frames are 1/16", and the sheeting is 1/32" thick material. Now I'm thinking of rearranging some of the frames in the center area to open it up a bit, just so it can also be converted to RC without much fuss.

Anyway, that's where it's at so far, so any thoughts or input from you guys would be much appreciated.






-Dean

[Devin]

Just found this thread. Very cool!

[mcg]

Came across this attractive gallery model of the Onondaga.

http://www.shipmodel.com/models/onondaga-full-hull

What is the significance of the curiously banded hull? Is this an accurate model of the finished Onondaga? Or is he maybe illustrating a hull construction technique?
Thank you for your insights.
Michael

[Devin]

On the steel hulled ships they would lap the metal like that, sort of like the plating on a WWII ship hull. Without welding, you have to lap it to eliminate leaks. To me that looks a little excessive, I'd do it simply with masking and a thick coat of paint to differentiate (like I did on my USS Weehawken). I think, though, that Onondaga had a wood hull, though; have to look that up.

[Roscoe]

Nice find Michael.

Yeah, I was going to say, none of the pics or drawings I've seen show wide bands like that. Nice looking model though.

-Dean

[Devin]

Just looked, and Onondaga did indeed have a steel hull. She was supposed to be wood, but the builders ignored that requirement and went with steel. So she would indeed have had a banding like that, but as I said, less pronounced. There's a book I have, but can't find right now, called something like "Monitors: The Men, Myths, Legends" that has a photo of USS Tecumseh on the ways in Jersey City, where the banding is visible. That's maybe the only photo I've seen it in, and that book is the only place I've seen that photo. It's high on my "to get list" if I ever get to NARA in DC to look through their Civil War photos.

In higher res versions of the below USS Camanche image you can barely make out the banding at the bow as it cuts diagonally upwards.

[herrmill]

Interesting how good minds think alike since Steve L. sent an email last night regarding his Onandaga which is featured in his book.

Does anyone else find it odd that the model in the American Model Gallery shows that heavy banded hull yet only rivet detail on the turrets & no where else, not the upper armored hull nor even the stack? Creative license, perhaps?

[Devin]

Yes, that's definitely a simplified model. If she's typical of other monitors of the period, she'd have raised round bolts (rivets) for the plating along the upper hull, flush bolts holding down the deck plating, and either raised or flush bolts on the stack.

[tea monster]

Remember the Brady Collection on Flickr. No hull detail, but some nice detail shots of the deck structures.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/usnational ... otostream/

There are some much clearer ones taken of a landing party showing the stern.

Owen

[mcg]

Wow. The depth of field on those old cameras was phenomenal.

The banding on the model might have been exaggerated by the builder so that the bands would be more evident in ambient, drawing room light. The photographer, using much more powerful lights, may have turned this into an overstatement. In any event, I really like those bands. They lend a lot of visual interest to the ship.

One question is, how to draw them in CAD? I can think of a couple of quick strategies in Rhino3D and I think it would make a neat 3D class project, tutorial or teaching exercise -- but things that look to be quick and simple at the outset often turn out to be neither quick nor simple. Michael

[tea monster]

You could do it the messy way and have an oval shape and boolean it onto the hull shape, then stick a 'shell' or 'hull' modifier onto it to make proud of the rest of the hull by a bit.

In my experiences, what you gain by speed now with booleans, you pay for later when you want to do something else with the mesh. Try and it and see though.

Option two is to have a shrinkwrap (not sure what it's called in SolidWorks) modifier and apply a nice, neat curve-shaped bit of mesh to the hull, then shell it up by a few percent to get the proud lines.

Owen

[Roscoe]

Once I get the deck half sorted out, I'll put some bands on the hull of the CAD model before I dissect it and post some pics on how I did it in SolidWorks. Like Owen mentioned, with Blender it's a different beast since the Boolean functions aren't fully developed yet, and it tends to leave a messy mesh. But with using solid bodies in SW, it's somewhat different than how you use meshes in Blender.

On another note, Owen and I have decided to change the scale to 1/72nd, and I plan on adding compartments for RC gear should anyone want to go that route. Sound good Chuck?

Take care guys,
Dean

[herrmill]

Just my humble opinion but I would not include banding on the hull but simply go with traditional lap plating that was found on iron & steel hulls up until the use of welding. As I stated in regards to the model, it appears some artistic license was used on the model. Considering they didn't even get the hull colors right for Onondaga, I'd not place too much stock on its accuracy.

From the photo Devin posted, it clearly shows lapped plate & not heavy hull banding but then I may be wrong since I've not seen enough clear photos of monitor hulls while under construction. I've attached several photos of Brunel's Great Britain which clearly shows the lapped plate with double riveting that would have been more in keeping with hull construction at the time.

BTW, I do love the idea of that larger scale, Dean! Already have my local laser cutter primed & ready to go.

[herrmill]

Wow. The depth of field on those old cameras was phenomenal.

I trust that you have already discovered the Shorpy Historical Photo Archive?

Here's another of Onondaga. http://www.shorpy.com/node/6583

[Roscoe]

Chuck,

Fear not, I don't plan on doing the bands on the actual model, just the CAD model to answer Michael's question. I've always been willing to share anything CAD related if I can, and really enjoy when others share their historical or technical knowledge of the actual ship. It makes doing the (CAD) model so much more enjoyable when you know some of the history behind it. So keep it coming.

Thanks for the pics and the link, haven't seen that one before.

-Dean

[Devin]

Two photos below, one is the overall photo of the Tecumseh and Manhattan on the ways in Jersey City. I love the details of this photo and I'll do a diorama of this one day (if I can ever work out how to build a Canonicus hull without going nuts!).

Tecumseh on the right still in overall white lead primer. Manhattan is on the left. Either they've started to attach her armor around the upper hull/raft portion, or just painted it so that it stands out more than Tecumseh. You can see through the scaffolding around her, though, that the lower hull is still white.

The close-up photo is of Tecumseh. Overall white, turret still not affixed. But look at that banding along the hull. Very very prominent, so much so that at points along the hull it looks as if the beams holding up the hull are lodged under them.

This photo is in "Monitors: The Men, Machines and Mystique", by Jerry Harlowe. This is the only place I have ever seen this image.

So, what's show on that Onondaga model is possibly correct, but over stated. There's debate as to whether the Canonicus class were wooden or steel hulled. I have a report somewhere of either Manhattan or another Canonicus having a close-call with a torpedo, and it "dished in the hull" in the area of impact. To me, wood wouldn't dish-in, only crack and shatter.

[herrmill]

I still have to respectively disagree that this is nothing more than lapped plating seen on any iron hulled vessels of the period of which both Onondaga, as well as the Canonicus class monitors were built.

Tecumseh was lost due to a single torpedo (mine) in Mobile Bay which holed her hull on the starboard side directly under the turret. The wreck survey plan clearly shows an iron plated hull similar in construction to the original Monitor which, according to Osprey's Union Monitor 1861-65, was constructed as

The major bottom plates (each 11 ft x 3 ft) were bolted in strakes on each side of the keel, and secured by heated iron rivets, which tightened the joint as they cooled. The exterior of the lower hull was surrounded by a 4 ft wide metal plate, secured by angled brackets and set 5 ft below the top of the lower deck structure.

Considering that Onondaga was ordered just 3 weeks after Hampton Roads & constructed at Continental Ironworks where Monitor, I would have to presume her hull was constructed in the same manner using the same rolled iron plate as had Monitor & the following Passaic class. We all know of Monitor's faults which resulted in improved, streamlined hull designs in the monitors that followed but I would think, given the urgency of the time, the yards commissioned to build for the Union followed the same construction methods used at the time as shown in the attached drawings. The Passaic drawing is taken from a set of plans that Devin was kind enough to forward my way.

Again, I would say the "banding" shown is nothing more than the lapped 4' plate that was incorporated used in Union monitor construction starting with Ericsson's original design for Monitor in 1861.

[Devin]

Oh, I'm not disagreeing that it could be a lapped plate arrangement. It probably is. I'm just saying that the look of that Onondaga model -- while too pronounced -- is likely correct in appearance, no matter the method of construction. You can clearly see it in the photo of Tecumseh I posted. They likely are plates bolted on in a raised run, but the white primer reflected enough light to blow out all of the details. The armor bolt details in the drydock photo of Camanche that I posted further up in this threat is the same way; you can't make out details due to the bright light reflecting off of her white primer, only just a few shadows on the starboard bow forward that let you know those bolts are there. The same with the banding detail in that shot, it's there, but what it's actually made of, who knows.

When researching the Weehawken, I found that a lot of those steel hulls would also be "puttied" with lead at the seams to further stop leaks, much like some German aircraft and the American P-51 during WWII sealed panel lines on the wings to get them smooth and reduce drag. So it could be that the hulls are indeed plated, but so thickly puttied and primed that the plating detail wouldn't be visible.