The Ship Model Forum

Hey Everyone,

This is my first ever post about any work in progress that I am doing. This is also the first kit I have built since I was fifteen years old. So please be gentle with the feedback . I would love to hear any you have and any suggestions as well.

The reason I a building this kit is to give to a close friend. His father was on the Endicott during WWII, both when she was a DD and after the conversion to DMS. I decided to build her in the Operation Anvil 1944 configuration. She was painted in Measure 32/3D at the time. There are only two modifications that I need to make to the kit. The bridge needs to be the late Gleaves style, and on the aft gun deck the kit uses the 1.1" and 20mm mounts. Those are to be replaced with two twin 40mm mounts.

The parts used:
-Dragon's USS Buchanan DD484 1942 1/350
-Admiralty Model Works Benson/Gleaves Bridge modification
-L'Arsenal twin 40mm mounts
-L'Arsenal 40mm gun tubs and racks
-Gold Medal Buchanan (Gleaves class) fitting set

Wish me luck.....

Pictures of this little progress so far will be posted soon.

The 40mm took 2 hours so far for the 4 pieces attached to it. I still need to add the chairs and the fencing on the back. Then do it a second time.

Let me know what you think or if you have any suggestions please.

Good start! I look forward on your progress!!



Bob Pink.

Before anyone dings me on it, I noticed something else I have to correct. The aft gun deck is misshaped for the two 40mm. So I have to file it down and correct the shape. Then add a new gun tub to the starboard side, and use photo etch railings on the rest of it.

The first picture is the way the kit comes. Which is correct in the original configuration. The second picture is a photograph of the late war configuration shared by the Gleaves class built after 1942.

Here is the modified gun deck. I did a little kit bashing to rob another gun well from my spares and sanded it down to fit correctly. I have not glued this on or seam filled it yet. I also still need to fill the holes from the old gun director spots and drill new ones. But the shape of the deck is now correct.
Now on to masking for painting Her in 32/3D.

will be watching this one with interest as I do love a good "tin-can"

I too have to say that you are off to a good start on your Endicott. I like what you did to the 40mm tub.
Keep the pictures coming.

I have discovered that I am not a huge fan of L'Arsenal's twin 40mm BOFOR's. The instructions are about as clear as mud and the dimensions seem to be wrong to fit everything in right. Alas, I have not found another company as of yet that offers a better after market set yet.

Anyway, the two mounts are assembled to the best of my ability, given the above stated issues. When they are painted and in the gun wells, I am hoping anything wrong with them will not be noticeable.

If anyone has another brand they could suggest, I would be grateful.

Has anyone tried the Alliance Models twin 40mm mounts?

If you don't mind white metal, Yankee Modelworks makes what I think are some pretty decent 40mm Bofors. Also, while I haven't tried them, the Alliance Bofors mounts look very good to me. Free time has them in stock now. Here is the link: http://www.freetimehobbies.com/1350alli ... ounts.aspx

Your work looks great and I'll be following your thread with interest as I have the '42 Buchannan in my stash. Great detail if it is anything like their U.S.S. Laffey kit. Welcome back to ship modeling. Like you, I'm a "returnee" to the hobby, having come back about 3 years ago after over 30 years away. You'll find a lot of great folks on this forum who are more than happy to share their experience and knowledge. The only warning I'd give you is not to try to hold yourself to the standard of some the guys here, certainly not on your first few builds. Some of these guys are true artists and when I started modeling again I had to do a real reality check along the lines of "why can't I get my work to look that good!". Then I got a grip on myself and realized that this is something I do for fun and decided that I would do, hopefully, the best work I could do and be satisfied that I'd done my best.

On thing you need to be ready for his the upper/lower hull fit. When I did Laffey I ended up having to do some filling and sanding to get a good joint. I found that Bondo body filler, not the two part stuff, but the stuff that comes in a tube like tooth paste, worked great and sanded well. You might want to consider joining the upper and lower hulls before you do any paint work on the upper hull, since you'll probably be doing a good bit of sanding on that joint.

I see that you have the original Hornet warming up in the bull pen. I've got her to. Have you looked into any of the PE sets available for her? GMM has some great sets, including a hanger deck set if you want to open up the hanger deck, which is how I plan to do mine. When you get ready to start on her you might want to do a search, as there have been several WIP threads on Hornet here over the years.

Great job so far and I'll look forward to seeing your updates soon.

Bob

Angeliccypher wrote:Has anyone tried the Alliance Models twin 40mm mounts?

I have the Alliance Modelworks Twin 40mm mounts. I haven't assembled any, yet, except I just now put the barrels on the chasis.

The anatomy of the chasis / base doesn't exactly look like the instructions' rendition. There is no circular base plate on the bottom like on the L'Arsenal ones, but one is shown beneath the chasis in the instructions. For gun tubs without a molded-in base ring (like my blue scratchbuilt one shown), the modeler would have to make his own base ring. The ring is present on the real mounts and this will raise the gun to the proper height. I'm confused as to why AMW didn't include the base ring. The same goes for their Quad 40's and 5" gun turrets.

Thanks for the feed back from both of you.

I will do a thread on CV-8 when I start her, and detail everything I am going to be doing to her at that point. I will leave this thread to the Endicott.

And the advise about not comparing myself to some of the folks here I have already found to be very pertinent.

Regarding the bofors, I like the black resin better. It would appear that the detailing is easier to see. You mentioned that they do not include the base. What was the round part on the top left of the sprue then? My biggest complaint about the L'Arsenal ones was the fact that the photo etch chairs did not seem to line up right with the wheel and then fencing. The attachment of them left something to be desired.

Are you going to modify the gun deck like I did for the later war configuration of adding to two bofor mounts?

Angeliccypher wrote:Thanks for the feed back from both of you.

I will do a thread on CV-8 when I start her, and detail everything I am going to be doing to her at that point. I will leave this thread to the Endicott.

And the advise about not comparing myself to some of the folks here I have already found to be very pertinent.

Regarding the bofors, I like the black resin better. It would appear that the detailing is easier to see. You mentioned that they do not include the base. What was the round part on the top left of the sprue then? My biggest complaint about the L'Arsenal ones was the fact that the photo etch chairs did not seem to line up right with the wheel and then fencing. The attachment of them left something to be desired.

Are you going to modify the gun deck like I did for the later war configuration of adding to two bofor mounts?

The gray sprue is for the DRAGON 40mm guns. They have the base rings.

I'm not building this kit. I have a few Benson, Buchanan, Livermore kits that I use some of the parts for on my USS Barnegat class seaplane tendres (AVPs). viewtopic.php?f=52&t=35286&start=520

After seeing some pictures of the Alliance 40mm, and after being disgusted with the result of the L'Arsenal 40mm I purchased the Alliance ones. MUCH BETTER!!!!!!!

Here are the picturess of the first one completed. I will finish the second tonight. Although I will not double up the pictures on it. Just for reference I threw the toothpick in there for scale.

I would love to hear feedback on this and suggestions for how I can do better, given this is my first model in 20 years and first time ever with this kit that I have ever dealt with photo etch, I would welcome anything you guys have to offer!

I have finished constructing the four 20mm mounts and the main fire control director.

The 20mm I used all kit parts including the photo etch that came with it.

The fire control director took some research to figure out what the Endicott actually had on her. the plastic is all kit pieces. All the photo etch is from the Gold Medals set for the Buchanan.

Let me know what you think.

Nice work getting the PE to bend/fold properly. I'm anticipating (with some trepidation) the same process when I get to the director on my 1/144 DD.

Keep up the good work!

Tim W.

On 1/350 scale I bent the main panel of the fire control director around a toothpick. It ended up being the exact size it needed to be. The way I figured this out was to look at the side pieces of photo etch that were to be attached to the array and placed the toothpick inside the curve. I found it to be a perfect match. Obviously this will not be the case in 1/144. So the other tool(s) I would have used if the toothpick did not work is a box of over one hundred brass drill bits. Ranging in sizes of 1" down to microscopic.

This is of course my method. I am open to others if anyone else has some that could make it easier.

Angleic, she's looking good. Definitely think the Alliance Bofors mounts look great. Keep up the great work and I'll look forward to your next updates.

Bob

Time for a bit of a rant. {take cover. Soap box approaching}

After spending a month researching this ship and figuring out what I would need to do to this kit to modify it appropriately I have discovered several new things in the last two days that are enough to make a hippy rip out their hair.

After realizing that the measure 32/3D drawings do not match up exactly to the only picture I have seen of DD-495 in that measure I started asking and looking for more pictures of her or sister ships in the same dazzle pattern. Only to find out that the time frame I am building her in, she was in measure 22. Shipcamouflage.com had her listed as 32/3D for 1944 which is correct after October. The previous months she was in 22, preceded by 18. At least this is easier to mask and paint.

Looking closely at the pictures of measure 22 I noticed several subtle differences that could not be made out very well on the navsource photos. These are the new differences.

There is a deck segment that comes out in front of the top level of the bridge, that I have no ideas what it is for or if anything is on it. So I will have to get some good photos of that to scratch build it.

She appears to have moved the aft 20mm mounts behind the aft funnel and added one more gun on each side. So I will have to get rid of the old gun wells, and scratch build new ones in the new location. I already have enough extra 20mm mounts though.

The wiki for her weapons listing is beyond messed up so I can not verify anything on that. Navsource says she has six K-guns, but I can not see them in any photo.

She supposedly had a new type of sonar, but I do not know if there was anything external for it.

And then there is the mess with the aft gun deck. I have seen four possible configurations for the shape of this deck. I can not find anything definitive on this one way or another.

Time to walk away from this kit for a bit and grab a stiff drink, then spend a day or two at NARA.

End rant.

Okay here are the latest updates. I have built the remaining three 20mm that I did not originally have planned, but found out I needed. I did not take any photos of these as I thought it redundant to what I had above.

I did get the propellers done as well and the 20B on the main deck areas. The color of the 20B looks off in the photos, but that is more my abysmal abilities in photography. The photo etch water tight doors are all on and have started to prime them. I only took a picture of these from one angle, but I think you will get the point.

As always, feel free to let me know what you think.