The Ship Model Forum

If anyone can scan the plans for the Quincy from the kit it will confirm the Tuscaloosa kit parts are identical and possibly the build up per the plans is a match to the Tuscaloosa instructions. I believe it will. HobbySearch has the kit posted (by Pit Road) but has not yet posted any photos of the kit contents or instructions. Trumpeter's site photos shows sprues that match those in the Tuscaloosa kit but no photos of a finished model.

A repop of something I posted on SN in answer to a question.



If the Quincy is the same mold as their Tuscaloosa (as it appears to be) then the kit has a few issues. Trumpy does not appear to have fully understood the height of the structure between the O-1 level and the deck of the pilothouse level. On this kit, the proportions are way off.

The original signal bridge level was one full level above the O-1. Beneath the conning tower, there was a short deck (the size of the CT base) roughly 1/2 level above the signal bridge level to raise the CT up high enough to see over the top of turret II. This made a total of 2 1/2 deck levels between the O-1 deck and the pilothouse deck. This was common through all 7 ships in the class. The only real difference on Quincy and Vincennes was the lack of projecting wings on the signal bridge.

When the 20MM were installed on Quincy and Vinnie, the gallery was placed at the level of the original base for the CT on Quincy. It should therefore be 1 1/2 levels above the O-1, and 1 full level below the pilothouse. On Vinnie, this same 20MM gallery was placed 1/2 level lower, at the original signal bridge level. This would make the gallery 1 level above the O-1 and 1 1/2 levels below the pilothouse.

The trumpy kit does not reflect these proportions, and compresses these decks making the pilothouse appear to be too low. Also, the "birdbath" (surround for the rangefinder) is not shaped accurately. All of these things are fixable, but it is too bad that we have to do that.

Here's a little teaser on the San Francisco kit converted to the USS Quincy.....

Almost ALL parts of the bridge were scratchbuilt. It's a real oppurtunity for me to build this rarely modeled and largely forgotten ship. I guess you can tell the differences between the Sf and Quincy



Thanks,
Nick

_________________
Nichol Caballero
Civil Engineer and Ship Enthusiast

Another repost from SN.



I will second the recommendation to visit the "other" site in the "Calling All Ships Fans" section. However, I will add a few things here.

First, the Tuscaloosa kit does NOT represent Tuscaloosa at any time. It is closer to Quincy, but still needs work to produce an accurate Quincy. The '42 San Fran kit is closer to a '42 Tuscaloosa than the Tuscaloosa kit is. The '44 San Fran kit is closer to a '44 Tuscaloosa than any of the others. However, many changes will have to be made.

1. The 5" gun arrangement is wrong for CA-37 on all of the available kits. The '42 San Fran kit is closer because Tuscaloosa never combined the splinter shields when modernized like the other 3 survivors did. Also, on CA-37, the after pair of 5" were the inset ones. The "middle" 4 all projected out about the same distance from the centerline.

2. The bridge was different in a number of ways. The open bridge expanded going aft from the forward end. On the others, it then narrowed considerably. Tuscaloosa's bridge did not narrow. Also, the original pilot house extended out to the edges of the open bridge above, wider than the other 3. Her flag bags were on a different level than the other 3, being on the same level as the pilothouse. The other 3 had the flag bags at the level of the 40MM. Then, the 40MM on Tuscaloosa and New Orleans were 1/2 level lower than on San Fran and Minnie.

3. The starboard 40MM quad on the hangar roof was further aft than on San Fran or Minnie. New Orleans had hers even further aft.

4. The 20MM were differently arranged, reflecting her Atlantic service, and CA-37 never carried any on the bow.

There were other detail differences, so get as many photos as you can, but this should get you started.

(One thing I forgot to add is that the '44 Minneapolis is the next closest to the '44 San Fran.)

Another repost, this time from the main forum.



Many of the kit shortcomings can be found in the Calling All Ship Fans forum, cruisers section, New Orleans class thread. The Quincy kit has a number of errors, and I haven't been able to ID them all (or their solutions) yet.

The AA outfit was 4 quad 1.1's and 12 20MM. All .50's had been removed. The confusion here comes from 2 sources. First, Trumpy has mistakenly made the Tuscaloosa and Quincy kits identical. Tuscaloosa did, at one point, carry 2 quad 1.1's and 2 quad 40MM. Quincy did not. The Trumpy '42 San Fran kit is actually far closer to the '42 Tuscaloosa (still with MANY corrections) but unfortunately, some supposed Tuscaloosa features crept into the Quincy kit. The other source of error is the Terzibaschitch US Cruisers book where he states (referencing his own drawing) something like "it can be determined from this sketch that Quincy replaced the after 1.1's with twin 40MM". Robert Ballard proved him wrong. The quarterdeck 1.1's in the underwater photos are unmistakable.

The placement of the 1.1 tubs is essentially correct, though those on the bridge are slightly out of position and are too shallow vertically. The 20MM were as follows: 2 forward of the raised 5" guns, 4 on the gallery around the front of the bridge, 4 on the hangar roof (1 ea. fore and aft of each crane), and 2 on the platform aroung the back of the after fire control tower. Basically, Trumpy got this right.

The bridge structure has some issues, though. If you have the '42 San Fran, Astoria, or Minneapolis kits, a bridge height comparison would be useful. Relative to the O-1 level, all 7 ships of the class had the decks at the same heights above that deck. 1 full deck height above the O-1 was the original communications bridge. At the front of that deck was a very small partial deck around 3' above the comm deck. This was the base for the conning tower, so that the tower would be high enough to see over turret II. The Navigation bridge/pilothouse rested on top of that. The pilothouse was the same height above the O-1 on all 7 ships, about 1 1/2 levels above the communications deck and 2 1/2 above the O-1. On the first 5 ships, the communications deck had wide "wings". On Quincy and Vincennes, there were no wings at this level, but the deck was still there. Terzibaschitch implies that this made the bridge lower on those two ships, but that is untrue. Trumpy botched this part relative to the height.

Tuscaloosa was first to glass-in the comm-bridge wings - at the original level, which meant the windows were blocked forward by turret II. So in Astoria, Minneapolis, and San Fran, the small deck on which the conning tower rested was extended out to the full size and shape of the comm bridge deck 1/2 level below. Those 3 ships then glassed in this new comm bridge at the higher level. New Orleans herself, never had the comm bridge deck raised or glassed-in. Quincy and Vincennes did not have the wings to glass-in. Because they didn't have wings on the comm bridge level, the back of that level on these two ships could not handle the flag bags (signal flags), so the back of the pilothouse deck was reshaped and the flag bags raised to that level. New Orleans later also raised the flags to the pilothouse level.

The Quincy kit is too short between the O-1 and the bottom of the pilothouse. On the real ship, the 20MM gallery was placed at the level of the base of the conning tower, even though the CT itself was replaced by a clipping room for the 20MM. Aft of the gallery was a step down to the comm bridge level. The comm bridge was still 1 level above the O-1 and 1 1/2 below the pilothouse. The 20MM platform was 1 1/2 levels above the O-1 and 1 full level below the pilothouse. (The kit 20MM platform also appears to be a bit too wide.) The corresponding 20MM platform on Vincennes was at the same level as the comm bridge, making it 1/2 level lower than the one on Quincy. The height of the pilothouse was unchanged.

I know this is a long explanation, but if you are to build an accurate model, this understanding is necessary.

I've cometo the fold

_________________
Gernot Hassenpflug
Find out how it works, then functionality and limits

There has been a lot of discussion both here and on the Steel Navy site concerning the Trumpeter 1/700 Quincy and the mess Trumpeter made of the Tuscaloosa. Much of the discussion has been questions about how accurate the Quincy is and what needs to be corrected. A lot of good information has already been provided in all the posts above this one.

I wanted to check this out also and remembered that I had 1/192 scale plan sets from Floating Drydock of both the Vincennes and Quincy. The Vincennes plan set is G series Official Navy Plans for 1942, while the Quincy plan set is a Floating Drydock set for 1942.

I reduced these plan sets to 28% of size (needs to be 27.43% for 1/192 to 1/700 scale) so I could compare the general shape of the various platforms in the kit to the shape on the plan sets. I also took measurements on the 1/192 plans to determine the height of each platform level and converted these measurements to 1/700 scale to compare to the actual height of the kit parts. Since I am an engineer I used an engineer's scale marked off in tenths of an inch. I then went back and redid the measurements using a metric scale. I also have the Classic Warships/Loose Cannon resin kits of these two ships and I used these for comparison.

I will limit my findings to the Quincy for now since I don't have the Trumpeter Vincennes kit yet.

Hull/Forward Main Deck:
The length of the New Orleans class was 578 feet at the water line. In 1/700 scale this is 9.909 inch (25.17 cm). The kit scales out to 9.91 inches (25.17 cm). The first ten portholes from the bow need to be filled and sanded as do all the lower row portholes that remain on the kit.

The biggest error on the kit is with the upper deck from the bow back to the superstructure. The length of the anchor chains and capstan locations need to be corrected. These were different on these two ships from the rest of the class. The starting location for the chains is correct from the bow being 0.52 inch (13.21 mm); however the ending point of the chains and the capstan locations need to be moved forward 0.2 inches (5.1 mm). These details are soft and need to be replaced anyway. Trumpeter also failed to relocate turret No. 1 8 feet aft of the location in the remainder of the class (except Vincennes) so the barbette foundation molded on the deck needs to be moved aft 0.14 inch (3.56 mm). These errors are a real disappointment since part L18 was a new tooling from the earlier kits to add the correct 5 inch gun shields amidships for Quincy and these errors could have been corrected. In fact part trees K and L are both new tooling.

I also checked the height of barbette No. 2 since this was 2 feet higher on Quincy and Vincennes. Converting from the plan the barbette height should be 0.22 inch (5.58 mm). For the kit part K2 the barbette height is 0.20 inch (5.08 mm).


Forward Superstructure:
Based on overlaying the kit parts on the reduced plan, all of the various kit parts for the bridge platforms are right on in shape and size. Kit part K8, Fire Control Platform, is a bit over simplified at the forward part of the structure. The rounded range finder platform and shield should complete more of the full circle inward before connecting to the aft portion of the platform; however the kit part has the shield tangent to the sides of the aft platform.

The height of kit parts K2, L5, L11 and L12, Communication Platform, converted from the 1/192 plan should be 0.14 inch (3.56 mm). The kit part is 0.14 inch (3.56 mm). Kit part L15 with L8, 9 and 7, Signal Bridge, should be 0.33 inch (7.62 mm) converted from the plan, but the kit part is 0.29 inch (7.36 mm) (the Classic Warships/Loose Cannon part is also 0.29 inch, 7.36 mm). Kit part L16, Navigation Bridge, checks good with the plans at 0.16 inch (4.06 mm). Kit part L13, Battle lookout, is 0.14 inch (3.56 mm) from the plan with the kit part 0.13 inch (3.3 mm) while K8, 11, Fire Control Platform, is 0.12 inch (3.05 mm) from the plan with the kit part 0.13 inch (3.3 mm). These measurements do not include the MK 31 main battery director or MK 33 AA director at the top of the Fire Control Platform. The overall height converting from the plan should be approximately 0.89 inch (22.61 mm). The overall height of the kit parts is approximately 0.85 inch (21.59 mm).

Overall the kit bridge height is good except the signal bridge, parts L15, 8, 9 and 7. Part of the problem is the thickness of the deck platforms. This is an age old problem with most plastic kits. The way L15 is molded the forward step-up from the signal platform to the 20 mm gun platform forward of the bridge is over twice the distance that it should be. This step-up should be 0.04 inch (a little over 1 mm) converted from the 1/192 plan to 1/700; however, the kit part has a step-up of 0.10 inch (2.54 mm). This makes the top of the deck house behind the 20 mm gun shield on part L15 flush with the top of the gun shield when the deck house should extend 0.07 inch (1.77 mm) above the gun shield. This molding problem is what creates the illusion that the overall height of the bridge structure is too short. The best way to correct this is by making a new pattern for the 20 mm gun platform out of thinner plastic sheet, remove the existing 20 mm gun platform, and place the new platform the proper height above the remaining aft Signal Bridge platform. You may also wish to add a 0.04 inch (1 mm) spacer at the top of the deck house conforming to the shape of the deck house to get closer to plan height. If this is done the height of the fore mast may also have to be corrected.

You may also wish to improve kit part L13. Again the problem here is the thickness of the deck platform. The thickness and the foundation for the 1.1 inch gun eats up the shield height making the gun mount stick too far above the shield. The shield itself is the right height measured from the outside at 0.05 inch (1.27 mm), but not from the inside. A new higher shield could be added to cover the 1.1 inch gun or a new platform could be constructed out of thinner sheet plastic using the existing part’s deck house. Again we see this on most 1/700 kits.

The rest of the kit matches very well with the Quincy plans. Trumpeter got the 5inch 25 cal gun shields correct, added the narrower search light tower, added the correct boat deck on the hanger (part K1), and the aft 20 mm gun platform, part K7, is the correct shape for Quincy. However, there is one last correction that needs to be made. This is the shape of the aft 1.1 inch gun shields. For Quincy these were in a tear drop shape, about 0.4 inch (10.1 mm) long, with the fat end aft and the narrow end to the forward and angled inboard. The narrow end contained the smaller gun director tub. The existing shield on the kit should be able to be used to fabricate the tear drop shape.

I know this is a long post, but I thought this information would be helpful to those with questions concerning the Trumpeter Quincy kit. When I get the Vincennes kit I will try and provide the same information. One thing to know about my measurements is that I am 56 plus years old and my eyes with my glasses puts a plus/minus factor in all of the numbers, but overall I think the measurements are very close. If anyone has any questions or needs clarification about what I provided please let me know.

Thanks Frank! This is a very useful comparison and will help immensely. I do have some questions and an observation.



Are you sure about this 2 feet figure? Friedman indicates a 6 inch difference in barbette height. All that was needed was enough additional height so that the back of turret II would clear the top of the back of turret I when turret II was pointed aft and turret I pointed forward. On the earlier members of the class, the extra 8 feet meant no overlap on the arcs for the back sides of the turrets.



If you add the .040 inch difference to the kit Signal Bridge parts, it raises the Navagation Bridge on the Quincy kit to the same height as the Navigation Bridge on the Astoria/Minneapolis/'42 San Fran kits. That .040 figure is consistent between the Signal Bridge height shortfall and the overall height shortfall.

If you have (or are getting) plans for the Vincennes, what do they have to say about the differences between the main battery directors on the Quincy and those on Vincennes? In the photographs, the Vincennes directors look very much like the early MK-34's that were on the Brooklyn's as-commissioned. They look very different from the MK-31's on the first 6 of the class. Also, how do the Vincennes plans show the splinter shields on the main deck 5" positions compared to the others in the class. Vincennes's shields were different from Quincy's. Lastly, what do your plans show for the configuration of the after 20MM guns on Vinnie? The photos aren't totally clear. (Or are there even plans available for this ship?)

Dick,
Sorry about the 2 feet comment. For what ever reason I thought I was correct, but was going by memory for the 2 feet thinking I had read that in something. I should have checked with the Friedman volume before posting. You are correct; the extra height for barbette 2 should only be 6 inches. The kit piece still comes up a little short.

I agree with your comments concerning the 0.04 inch difference for the signal bridge. However, I have not compared the height of the Quincy kit parts with the corresponding kit parts in the San Francisco/Astoria/New Orleans/Minneapolis kits to see if they come out to the right height. I may do this later when I have a chance.

As for your questions on the Vincennes, I do have a set of Vincennes plans from Floating Drydock. These are the G Series Official Navy Plans dated 1942 in 1/192 scale. The Vincennes plan has the same main battery director as the Quincy plan and to me they look the same as each other in photos in Warship Pictorial No. 7. I am afraid that I can not see any difference in these two ship’s main battery directors compared to the remainder of the class after looking at the photos in the Warship Pictorial and other sources. I have also looked for written references as to any difference and have been unable to find anything.

As for the 5 inch gun shields amidships they are shown as the same as the San Francisco/Astoria/Minneapolis/New Orleans, the first and third of the three are outboard and the middle one set back. The curved shape of the shields looks to be same also. So if the Vincennes kit is just the same as the Quincy kit the shields will have to be redone.

As for the aft 20 mm guns, there were only two on the hanger roof. They were in large tubs and I think kit part K12 in the Quincy kit (not used) will be the hanger roof for Vincennes; however, the tubs should overhang the sides of the hanger maybe a little more than they do on K12 and the opening in the tubs should be on the opposite side of the tub (kit has the openings on the aft side of the tubs, but they should be on the forward side). The 20 mm gun platform on the aft superstructure shows two guns and unused kit part K5 in the Quincy kit matches the Vincennes. In accordance with the plans the final two 20 mm guns were placed between turret three and the aft 1.1 inch gun positions (the shields for the 1.1 inch gun aft positions on the Vincennes plan are as in the Quincy kit, round not tear drop). The two 20 mm in this aft location had fairly large gun tubs in almost full circles with the aft 8 inch gun barrels overhanging just slightly and centered on the same line fore and aft as the 1.1 inch tubs. I think the Trumpeter cad drawings show this arrangement.

I know you have also mentioned the bridge windows on the Vincennes may be narrower than the other ships; however, the plans do not show this to be the case. They are the same size and shape as the Quincy plans. I have looked closely at several photos of Vincennes and from certain angles it does look like they are smaller (example the lower photo on page 54 of Warship Pictorial No. 7), but I think this is an illusion caused by the distance and angle. Some of the other ships in the class bridge windows appear to be smaller than they are at a distance and quarter angles.

I hope to pick up the Trumpeter Vincennes kit shortly so I will be looking it over and comparing it to the plans. It appears that most of the same things I covered in the Quincy comparison will be true for Vincennes. I don’t think there is a provision or different part in the two kits for the correct signal bridge on Vincennes, but the correction is the same as I noted for parts L15, 8, 9 and 7 on the Quincy except the 20 mm gun platform should be flush (not have the step-up as the kit part has) with the level of the remaining aft platform on the signal bridge part L15. Also the amidships 5’ splinter shields will need to be removed and replaced matching the San Francisco. I picked up an extra Astoria on sale so I plan to cut the main deck aft of the bridge and swap for the Vincennes deck if these shields are wrong.

Again, sorry for the misinformation about the height increase on barbette no. 2. I hope the rest of this information helps.

Frank... before it gets forgotten let me say welcome aboard and thanks for the excellent posts!

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman

I have seen where the Trumpy kit places the last 2 20MM on the quarterdeck. (From their web site) However, I can not identify any 20MM in that area of the available photos and I wondered what the plans showed. I suspect that Trumpy based their kit on those plans. As for the main battery directors, the visual differences can be a bit subtle. The directors were similarly shaped, but those on Vinnie were larger. (Compare relative widths on the main directors and the MK-33's) Also, the MK-31's had a built-in rangefinder that protruded significantly from the sides, while the directors on Vinnie did not. (The earliest MK-34's on the Brooklyn's had spotting glasses that barely protruded rather than the rangefinder of the later MK-34 installations.)

I am still hoping to find photographic evidence of the 20MM locations. Vinnie's bridge windows were the same width, side-to-side, but the lower half seems to have been plated-in. Apparently while at Pearl, after Midway, Vinnie also had her nav-bridge wings clipped. They no longer protruded past the 1.1 tubs. I was aware of the individual splinter shields for the 5" guns, and am still trying to decide the best way to correct that part on my model. I will probably ignore the fact that, while the middle gun on each side was inset, on Quincy and Vincennes, it was not inset quite as far as on CA's 32, 34, 36, and 38. (CA-37 had the after pair inset.)

As for the "misinformation", we all make mistakes. I have made my share just like about everyone else on this board. But that is why we share in such a public forum. We check and help out each other. Thanks again for all your efforts!

And, to echo Tracy - Welcome Aboard!!

Thanks for Dick J and Frank Fowler for some stupendously useful tips on corrections, that dissipates my misery in which I was enveloped completely after perusing the kit of the Quincy. As for Vincennes: not yet available in Japan. Maybe end of April.

I guess for refs I would need to buy plans, since the books Frank mentioned would presumably not be as good for that task---they would be used for making up details.

_________________
Gernot Hassenpflug
Find out how it works, then functionality and limits

Hi,
Has anyone or can tell me where to get acurate hull drawings of NO class cruisers? Preferably both faired lines and stations. I will be grateful for any info.

_________________
God created Arrakis to train the faithful.

Hi,
What is out there to detail the '42 1/350 USS San Fco?
PE sets, barrels, etc?

Thanks.

_________________
Eli Raphael
www.zotzdecals.com

Here's one, to start

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman

Thanks Tracy,
Just found this one also, any thoughts?
http://www.hlj.com/product/PITGM3544

_________________
Eli Raphael
www.zotzdecals.com

That one is the GMM set; PitRoad imports them for sale in Japan.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

Hi guys,

Just thought I'd chime in and say I'm useing both the WEM and GMM P/E sets for my 350th New Orleans and I highly recomend them...it seems what details one set doesn't have the other set does!...HTH!!!!!!!

Dave

_________________
"There is no problem which cannot be solved through suitable application of naval artillery."

I am wondering what references are available for the individual ships: I know about Steve Wiper's books, and other than that I understand that I would need plans from Floating Drydock or similar (and scale them down to 1/700 or whatever). Are those the basic options?

_________________
Gernot Hassenpflug
Find out how it works, then functionality and limits

I've posted a 1942 CA-38 San Francisco Damage Report that contains some drawings and photos which should be useful.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman