The Ship Model Forum

OK, Tom - here's a photo of one pair (of 2 pair) that I've finished- still have the Mk. 34 to add but that will be tomorrow. So, once these are all completed (3 for the model, 3 spares, 3 spare multi-part mounts) I will have a major hurtle overcome. So, afterwards I intend to clean up the work surface and fill up the parts box with all these small parts, etc. and get them in one place.

Tonight I also got the hull & main deck cemented together - I hope to begin to layout the 'oil can' grid and start work on that. I'm also designing a new Mk. 56 GFCS Director as the commercial one I purchased several years ago didn't paint well at all. Making one out of resin with all the details (I hope) should make a nice addition.

Hank

Hank:

Those came out really well, probably the best ones in 1:144 around! A bit of a thrash for just three mounts, but well worth wha they will add to the Stoddard!

Cheers: Tom

Thanks again, Tom - yes, it was in the long haul, worth the time & effort. I should have a few more photos to post shortly. Still waiting for paint to dry, etc. before assembly.

Hank

Hank:

And you are leaving the rest of us to watch the paint dry?

Cheers: Tom

Fliger747 wrote:Hank:
And you are leaving the rest of us to watch the paint dry?
Cheers: Tom

That's affirmative! No shop work today - doing 3D design while it rains and is generally dreary.



Might get some new photos tomorrow.....

Hank

Hi there Hank and all,

I don�t think that these pictures make any kind of justice to these excellent mounts. The level of accuracy you have achieved is simply amazing.

Reg. the oil canning, and as I assume you will be working with scalpels, you will find the process long and tiring, with many many hours of joy and happiness ahead, buy way easier than expected, and when you have done the first grids, you will not be able to drop the job, such an inmense difference you will find in your hull. Both you and will be in debt for a long time with Marijn van Gils, who gave me the tip on the #15 scalpels.

Be careful with the grading of the canning, as the fore peak has very little up and down, increasing gradually after the anchors. This is what I mean: Good luck, and keep us updated.

Nice going from across the pool,

Willie.

Willie,

Thanks so much for the kind remarks! I do appreciate it - esp. from you! I hope to have some newer photos of the finished mounts (sitting) in place in the tubs shortly. Got other things to do today!

I also thank you for the further advice on the oil canning process. I'm hoping to get the grid laid out this week on the hull - so, it's not far away.

Hank

It wouldn't surprise me if the immediate stem area had a slightly heavier plating, say maybe 20 lb. An area that could experience various surprises in maneuvering, docking etc. The stem from just above the waterline looks fairly straight and perhaps could be a couple of even heavier plated as reinforcement for ramming? Maybe RED knows something about this structurally.

: )

Fliger747 wrote:It wouldn't surprise me if the immediate stem area had a slightly heavier plating, say maybe 20 lb. An area that could experience various surprises in maneuvering, docking etc. The stem from just above the waterline looks fairly straight and perhaps could be a couple of even heavier plated as reinforcement for ramming? Maybe RED knows something about this structurally.
: )

The only additional plating I've seen have been the plates added later to some of the FLETCHER class ships around the hawse holes.

I actually did get the 3"/50 mounts finished today and seated them in their respective locations. So, here is a mock up of the mounts and their various deck houses, etc.:
Mt. 33 - Mts. 31/32 - And the Pilot House/Nav Bridge atop the fwd deck house: I'm currently working on a 3D design for a Mk. 56 GFCS director replacement as I'm not happy with the purchased item & it's paint job - this is close to being ready for a test print (3 pcs.) so maybe later this week. Also, will be printing some new deck mtd. tool boxes for the gun tubs that I did in 3D, as well.

Hank

Hank:

Really good progress on some complex items!!

Keep up the good work! Tom

Very nice job, Hank

Tom, Pascal -

Thanks so very much - and, to both of you for your continued support & assistance!!! It always helps to have those willing to chip in and comment, etc. as extra eyes and experience is very beneficial.

Hank

DavidP wrote:Hank, what was the reason for the 3D printed railings instead of using wire & rod instead?

David,

Apparently, you haven't quite gotten the gist of using 3D printed parts, so here is about as simple a reply as I can make - WE'RE USING 3D PRINTED PARTS

Yeah, I know, the concept is almost mind-boggling, isn't it? OK, try to keep up here -

The whole idea of design/print in 3D is to eliminate the hand made effort and replace this with 3D generated parts.

Now, there will be a test at the end of the class.....be there or be L7!!



I do, however, appreciate your interest!

Hank

Besides.... I talked him into it...

Fliger747 wrote:Besides.... I talked him into it...

SO THERE!!!!

Printing Mk. 56 bases and gun tub tool boxes - we'll see how those turn out

DavidP wrote:Hank, I get the "gist" for doing 3D but not the rails as still out of scale but that is me not you.

David,

Assuming that you are talking about the inside handrails when you say "rails" - if the rails were drawn to scale (i.e. scaled thickness of the rail, etc.) they simply wouldn't print. This is one of those things that you realized once you actually start working with the 3D design/printing of parts.

I'll guarantee you that most kits on the market today have small parts of various items that don't even come close to being "in scale" simply from the materiel standpoint that the molds or manufacturing process wouldn't produce usable parts. And if they did, those parts would be so fragile a gnat's ass sitting on one would destroy it. 3D design for models is a compromise at best - making something that looks as close to the actual object as possible and has the physical characteristics to be usable at the same time.

Personally, I don't think they look out of scale. I took pains to increase the handrail diameter only as much as I thought I could get away with - and somehow it worked. So, rather than waste materials going back & forth, etc. I looked at what I had and said "done!".

So, when you produce your 1/144 scale 3" gun mounts that contain parts that are all "in scale" - be sure to post a photo or two.

Hank

To my estimations a 3D printed rail at .3 mm equals a rail (in 1:144) at 43 mm or 1.7", which would not be over scale. Soldering brass wire generally involves stanchions and rails crossing, which is a realism no no. I have done enough at this to be OK at it but I think it generally results in a more precise location of stanchions and rails to do this in 3D. In any larger scale PE is too FLAT and if you are using generic rail the stanchion spacing is way off.

Even in my one current project I have used a number of rail methods. Probably the 3D is the most useable of the three. None of this applies to the wonderful work EJ Foeth is doing on his 1:350 Hood using traditional methods. Not all of us can make anchor chain at that scale using brass wire.

Regards: Tom

Tom,

It appears that some people simply have to find something to complain about in spite of the fact they know nothing about what they're complaining. Using your calculations, I'm fairly close to the mark on those handrails. Besides, it's a moot point at this stage of the build. Now, to more important items:

After our midnight discussion regarding the PULL tool and its variations, I'm going to work on getting the dish correct this morning. I would like to get it to print in the next day or so. As for the director cab. - I have a couple small details to add and also (OMG!!!) - a handrail and vertical ladder with handrails!!!

Do ya thunk I can get it right this time?????

Hank

Hank:

My experience (such as it is) has been that the smaller diameter pieces such as pipe rails tend to shrink from the designed size but the material is a bit fragile and difficult to "mike" so I haven't measured the finished items for diameter. I would expect that the various resins and printers will present different results. I would say that the rails on my 5" 38 open mount are in scale at 1:120 but I haven't measured the finished item.

Looking forward to your MK 56 director, a unit, though blocky, has numerous small surface items which give detail and texture for a convincing model.

Regards: Tom

Over the last couple weeks I've been working on a 3D replacement for the Mk. 56 FGCS director (which was a 3D commercial purchase in 2017) due to the way it came out after painting. This director was a Shapeways plastic product and I was not happy with the results. Unfortunately, I have quite a few of these to use on the model, so now that I've found a suitable spray for the haze gray surfaces, this shouldn't be a problem.

So, I finally tonight printed the 5th edition of the director body or cab, and although it has a couple minor issues, I can use it. I may go back and try to correct these small details and make a further print - I haven't decided. I have got successful prints of the director base and the RADAR dish. Initially, I designed the cab with both ladders/handrails as part of the unit, but since they failed to print correctly, I removed them and made separate design files (parts) of each one. So, here are the design pictures of the four parts of this unit:

Base of Director: Mk. 56 Director Cab: (The two Ladders/handrails have since been removed)

RADAR Dish: And the two Ladders w/Handrails: I printed these items in pairs so that if possible, I would at least get one good print from the session. In this case, I have two good bases, two fairly good directors, and 3 pairs of good ladder sets.

One change that is noticeable is that I left the cupola windows out - I will actually use Testors clear cement to create window panes for those openings. I never did like the solid windows in the part that I had purchased.

Hank