Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ask An Expert- Battleships

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • bigjimslade
    replied
    I put for an alternate theory. It is possible that there is a BEND at FR119 rather than a KNUCKLE?

    In the attached I have a rendering in which I have put a small radius at FR119 and the angle change (<2 deg.) is much less noticeable than I expected.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	Screen Shot 2016-10-26 at 1.25.23 PM.png
Views:	2
Size:	234.9 KB
ID:	1469598

    I'm not very good with lighting but here's an angle that makes it more prominant.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	Screen Shot 2016-10-26 at 2.18.06 PM.png
Views:	1
Size:	376.6 KB
ID:	1469599
    Last edited by bigjimslade; 26 Oct 16,, 19:20.

    Leave a comment:


  • RustyBattleship
    replied
    I really don't see any difference in those scans. BUT, you will notice, to the far right, the superstructure expansion joint at frame 115/116. There is a structural watertight bulkhead BELOW main deck at frame 119 that goes through some crew berthing on 2nd deck. It is likely (but not logical in MY mind) to have a non-welded portion of the Main Deck centered over a bulkhead using only the watertight bulkhead below to seal off the riveted butt strap (two of them, one on top and one below). But then, we are trying to reinterpret 1930's design principles where the closest thing we had for a computer was a slide rule.

    So it really isn't illogical to have a butt strap CLOSE TO but NOT AT the same frame of the expansion joint.

    But it's too late at night now and I want to watch another recording of NCIS (who I did some research for one time -- but without the "C"). Sure wish I had a partner like some of the gals they have on those shows.

    Leave a comment:


  • bigjimslade
    replied
    Thanks,

    If you could supply the offsets, I could go from there. I don't see a knuckle at FR119 in pictures. Yet I see it in the data and the FD planbook. I trust my eyes (and yours) more than the plans. Even though the angle is small (1.86 deg.) I would think that you could see it if it be there.

    To add to my confusion, here's an image I dug up from plans I photographed at NARA. it shows BOTH the indentation at the turret base and the knuckle a FR119.
    The FD planbook shows no indentation and a knuckle.
    The FD 1980s plans shows the indentation and no knuckle.
    Here is both the knuckle and the indentation.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	Deck.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	460.9 KB
ID:	1469597
    Attached Files
    Last edited by bigjimslade; 26 Oct 16,, 01:12.

    Leave a comment:


  • RustyBattleship
    replied
    Sorry, all I can do is based upon my inspections of all 4 Iowa class Battleships in the 1980's, Missouri in the late 90's for the Hawaii group and Iowa (several times) for the PBC.

    Even with rotted and broken wood deck covering, I have never seen a knuckle of any sort in the main deck area you show. As I said before, which I will check out while on the Iowa for Veterans Day, is there is probably a transverse butt strap there. Where the STS plating is not welded, riveted butt straps are used instead.

    This does add some "flexibility" to the hull plating to allow for hog and sag during heavy seas. That is why there is an expansion joint in the superstructure going from the main deck, up to 03 level, crossing both 02 & 03 levels at about frame 116.

    When I have the time (and remembering what to do) I will research the Mold Loft Offsets to see if there is any indication of a need for a butt strap.

    Your best bet would be to come out to California and visit Iowa herself.

    Leave a comment:


  • bigjimslade
    replied
    More information on the deckhouse shape

    Originally posted by RustyBattleship View Post
    It would certainly help if you showed the pictures you used for your diagram. Based upon the shape of the hull you are showing the port side of the ship. The red lines show the upper handling rooms of the 5"/38 mounts 54 & 56. That puts your black line at about frame 120 (small boat stowage). The Harpoon site was further aft between frames 126 & 128. Those platforms originally were designed to mount a cargo crane. Later they were modified to to mount a quad 40mm AA gun. During modernization we removed the quad 40 and put the Harpoons in.
    Sorry for being misleading. Uploading here is an iterative process of cutting until the file fits the restrictions of the board. Here I have underlaid the image from the booklet of general plans for location reference. The yellow dots are offsets taken from tabular data at NARA.

    The datapoints give a straight line from the corner where the deckhouse juts in (triangular locker) going aft and another straight line (running parallel to the centerline) going from the corner near the refueling kingpost extending forward.

    Those two lines intersect at the location marked with the blue line (which happens to be the location of a data point at FR119).

    Either there is a knuckle at this location or the data is incorrect (which I suspected). The question then become what IS correct? It is possible that the deckhouse was cut back to make room for boats during the 80's?

    Click image for larger version

Name:	Screen Shot 2016-10-25 at 10.52.03 AM.png
Views:	1
Size:	315.0 KB
ID:	1469593

    Here is the same general area (moved the view back) showing how the Floating Drydock plan covers it. The side of the deckhouse forward of the aft/maindeck 5" mounting moves in a foot from the side aft of the mounting. That would push the knuckle forward.

    On the other hand, the booklet of general plans qualitatively indicates that this segment is continuous between the two gun mounts. That would make the sides below the phalanx mount angled (which they do not appear to be).

    Click image for larger version

Name:	Screen Shot 2016-10-25 at 11.12.58 AM.png
Views:	1
Size:	136.6 KB
ID:	1469594

    And the Floating Drydock planbook (WWII era) does not show this indentation in the deckhouse. AND, it shows a knuckle approximately at FR119. This image is of the port side. Sorry for the confusion of switching sides but the segmented image has the frame locations more clearly marked on the port side. To this image I have added my own gray line so show the knuckle on the plan.

    If anyone has some plans giving offsets from the centerline of this area it would be helpful to figure all this out.

    This is the problem of making everything fit in 3D. There are huge internal inconsistencies in the various plans when you try to fit them all together.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	FD FR119.png
Views:	1
Size:	253.0 KB
ID:	1469595

    Leave a comment:


  • RustyBattleship
    replied
    Originally posted by bigjimslade View Post
    In the attached I have an image showing the outline of the Iowa deckhouse at the main deck level (red). The numeric data in the plans shows a knuckle at the black line.

    In the modernizations the supports for the Phalanx, Tomahawk, and Harpoon platforms are roughly show in yellow.

    From pictures it looks like the outer face of this support is flat and and parallel to the center line and aligned with the deckhouse below. Yet, it would sit above this knuckle.

    Does anyone know what was done here? Is there a knuckle here at all? If so, does the support above bend to follow this knuckle? Or was something else done?


    [ATTACH]42396[/ATTACH]
    It would certainly help if you showed the pictures you used for your diagram. Based upon the shape of the hull you are showing the port side of the ship. The red lines show the upper handling rooms of the 5"/38 mounts 54 & 56. That puts your black line at about frame 120 (small boat stowage). The Harpoon site was further aft between frames 126 & 128. Those platforms originally were designed to mount a cargo crane. Later they were modified to to mount a quad 40mm AA gun. During modernization we removed the quad 40 and put the Harpoons in.

    Since I have inspected all four Iowa class ships during their modernization in the 1980's and now have one a 25 minute drive from my house, I have never, ever seen a knuckle in that 1 1/2" thick STS armor deck in that area. Besides, the yellow lines you show are of the CIWS deck house on 03 level.

    I happen to have a copy of the Mold Loft Offsets and believe me, there is NO KNUCKLE in that deck. What you are probably mis-interpreting is a Butt Strap of 5/8" thick steel plate, 15" wide riveted to the main deck plating but UNDER the 2 1/2" thick teakwood decking.

    Umm, yeah. During decking replacements I've tripped over more butt straps than I care to remember.

    Leave a comment:


  • bigjimslade
    replied
    Question on Superstructure

    In the attached I have an image showing the outline of the Iowa deckhouse at the main deck level (red). The numeric data in the plans shows a knuckle at the black line.

    In the modernizations the supports for the Phalanx, Tomahawk, and Harpoon platforms are roughly show in yellow.

    From pictures it looks like the outer face of this support is flat and and parallel to the center line and aligned with the deckhouse below. Yet, it would sit above this knuckle.

    Does anyone know what was done here? Is there a knuckle here at all? If so, does the support above bend to follow this knuckle? Or was something else done?


    Click image for larger version

Name:	Screen Shot 2016-10-23 at 7.44.19 PM.png
Views:	2
Size:	57.8 KB
ID:	1469590

    Leave a comment:


  • bigjimslade
    replied
    This is what I've got with the information that I've got. No stanchions and ladders yet.
    Click image for larger version

Name:	Harpoon 3.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	191.9 KB
ID:	1469580

    Leave a comment:


  • RustyBattleship
    replied
    A very nice perspective drawing of a STANDARD Harpoon launcher. On the Battleships, they have exstra sleeves of tubing ( 1.5" thick walls) to meet level (####) for fragmentation protection.

    Also the blast deflector is shaped like a large dust pan (but without the handle).

    Contact W. Upshaw at the scaleshpyrd@aol.com for more detailed info (possibly some dimensions) as he has built all those items in 1:96 scale for his 9'-3" long RC model of BB-62.

    Leave a comment:


  • bigjimslade
    replied
    Thanks all. I've started work using the information provided. I still have to do supports.

    I am going for a level of detail that can be reproduced in 1:96 to 1:192 scale.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	Screen Shot 2016-10-17 at 9.33.49 AM.png
Views:	2
Size:	187.2 KB
ID:	1469528

    Leave a comment:


  • RustyBattleship
    replied
    As for dimensions of the ABL, remember that TWO different companies built them. General Dynamics built all those on BB-61, BB-63 & BB-64. On BB-62 however, the aft two ABL's on the after 03 level were built by FMC (Food Machinery Corporation). AND they take a slightly different design in the foundations. I know because I had to design those foundations for their tests on the USS Merril, one for GD and one for FMC.

    Then when the Battleships came along, I had to make sure that the proper ABL went on its matching foundation.

    Whew! Where's my martini?
    Last edited by RustyBattleship; 17 Oct 16,, 06:16.

    Leave a comment:


  • RustyBattleship
    replied
    Try this website that supposedly has the software you need on the CIWS:

    http://www.winsite.com/vulcan/vulcan...+gun/freeware/

    Leave a comment:


  • SW4U
    replied
    Originally posted by bigjimslade View Post
    Still on my list are measured drawings for Harpoon, CWIS, and Tomahawk. I am surprised how hard these are to find, especially the CWIS.
    Harpoon :
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • bigjimslade
    replied
    Thanks,

    There really should be an effort to located and preserve any remaining documentation on the Iowas. I may be asking a lot of questions but I have done A LOT of research before asking them. For example, go to the National Archives to find details on the Iowa class stacks. Images like this are all that are left with all the details obliterated:

    Click image for larger version

Name:	Side Stack Rotated.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	394.5 KB
ID:	1469521

    If you want details on the armored conning tower, the National Archives has that in print with every detail. But, for most things, there is little more than blurry microfilm that was made with little care.

    All this will be lost forever if any surviving drawings are not gathered up.

    Leave a comment:


  • SW4U
    replied
    Originally posted by bigjimslade View Post
    Thanks much. I actually had the support leading to the antennas but, as so often happens with 3d modeling, I forgot to include those supports.

    In regard to the SPS-49 mount, big thanks. I am totally guessing. I have not found any measurements for any of the antennae. SPS-10, SPS-49, SATCOM, and others. I have some clearer pictures of the Iowa but don't see it there. I don't see the cone that you describe on the Iowa pictures but I do see it on SPS-49 mounts on other ships. The distance shots I have of the NJ clearly show a mount that is different from that on the Iowa.

    If anyone has measured drawing of these antennae, I'm looking!
    SPS-49 antenna parameters :
    * width : 24.0 ft / 7.3 m
    * height : 14.2 ft / 4.3 m
    * rotating clearance : 28.4 ft / 8.7 m diameter

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X