Subject: SMML VOL 3013 Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 01:46:23 +1100 The Ship Modelling Mailing List (SMML) is proudly sponsored by SANDLE http//sandlehobbies.com For infomation on how to Post to SMML and Unsubscribe from SMML http//smmlonline.com/aboutsmml/rules.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1 From a clumsyhand 2 F/A 18 Super-Everything 3 Re Carrier Plane for All Seasons? 4 Modellbau-Schatton 1/72 scale U-boat and S/E-boat details 5 Re 1/72 boats 6 F/A - 18 super hornet 7 SCR-517a Radar 8 Re Ships Sinking Stern First? 9 Re Ships Sinking Stern First? 10 Re Japanese Warship Design 11 Re Seacat directors 12 Re Sinking of HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From "einar kr holtet" Subject From a clumsyhand For all experts I admire you! And for all of you who are in historical research I admire you, too! I have to say that SMML is a goldmine for all of us who like ploughing not only the seas but also the deep sources made available to us by you! This is extremely valuable for those of us who are fortunate enough to enjoy the SMML access. For expert modellers, there is only one thing that I wish to convey Eact time I open the Fine Scale Modeller or go through the Norwegian Limtuben - or simply look at the modelling results presented at yearly exhibitions, I feel asahmed by not being able to come up with half of the glorious finish myself! Is it time to give up? Or do you have a tack that I never discovered? Best Einar ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From Subject F/A 18 Super-Everything Ned, your post ref the Superbug is what I have been asking for a while. The USN has tried to reduce the airfleet to one or two basic frames to save money and maintenance spaces, apparently. All that at the cost of true mission-specific aircraft. The S-3 was apparently somewhat of a disappointment, although I work with an ex-Hoover flier who swears by the machine as a great all-weather platform for ASW, Antiship and refueling duties. He did air-to-ground missions in Iraq in the first war, as well as maritime patrol duties around the Gulf. The US Navy is, I fear, going the way of the rest of the worlds' great air forces, looking for the magic bullet solution of one size fits all, forcing airframes to do things they are not necessarily meant to. As for the replacement to the EA6B, technology HAS advanced to where, allegedly, the two seat Superbug can replace the 4-seat Prowler. As far as ASW platforms are concerned, I'd like to see that Hoover remain for a while. The Pheonix missile is expensive, overrated and obsolete, and studies have shown it may not have worked quite the way it was advertised in combat, so I'm not sure that's a valid concern. Current weapons technology has improved on more mainstream existing weapons that are cheaper and easier to maintain. That missile was so "valuable" that most fliers never got to shoot one in training, only in simulation. They remained in bunkers and magazines most of the time, rather than strapped to a Tomcat where they belonged. I have said for years now that the USN will regret abandoning the Tomcat as the primary fleet defense fighter, though. Old, but not obsolete, and very adaptable like the Phantom, it has proven an ability to fight, bomb and provide air superiority. Hornet will never measure up in my mind, but I'm not a driver, so I'll let experts provide the input on that. In the future you will see US carrier decks smaller, and populated by all-purpose Superhornets and Seahawks, MAYBE with some V-STOL F-35 aircraft, but only a few. Just one modelers' opinion... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From AAA Hobby Supply Subject Re Carrier Plane for All Seasons? From Ned Barnett >> I saw a Military Channel special on the FA-18 Hornet last night, and it mentioned that the new Super Hornet (FA-18 E/F) will be replacing the Hoover (S-2 Viking) aerial tanker and ASW aircraft, the Queer (EA-6) jammer aircraft, as well as the F-14 Tomcat fighter. I cannot for the life of me imagine how a fighter can effectively "do" ASW - or how a one- or two-man aircraft can effectively replace the six-man EA-6 in the jamming mission. Or, for that matter, how a slower fighter without a Phoenix can adequately defend the fleet. Anybody got any ideas on what the Navy's thinking? Is this a matter of "budget uber alles" or is there some other rationale that escapes me. As a fleet defense fighter, the Super Hornet seems to be a step in the right direction - more weapons, longer range (though why they're not figuring out how to fit the Phoenix is beyond me). But ASW requires low-and-slow, the ability to drop sonobouy patterns, an onboard TACCO officer (along with one or two other sensor platform operators), etc. Same kinds of limitations on a two-man jammer, or so it seems. So, any ideas, insights, rationales, excuses, or official "BS"? << Ned, The F-18F platform will be the one doing most of the replacing. Here are some facts to consider when the Navy makes this claim 1. the EF-111 did the same job as the EA-6B (4 guys, not 6) almost as good. With the advances in computer ability since 1970 4 guys aren't needed. In fact the EA-6B usually fies with an empty seat. Two guys can handle the job, with the newer systems. 2. the S-3 (S-2 was in the 60s) hasn't been relegated to the ASW mission since the early 90s. In fact, VS now officially stands for Sea Control Squadron, reflecting this loss of a pure ASW role. The S-3 has, for the most part, done the job of scout and tanker. With buddy tanks any plane can be a tanker. 3. The Phoenix is an ancient system. In the Balkans war, they were fired at Serb fighters and simply did not work. It seems that 20 years of being jolted on cats & traps did their usual magic on the electronics. The newest AIM-120C+ (or whatever they are calling it this month) has a range of "about 60-70 miles." The F-18C was rated to carry 10 in an emergency war situation and the E/F can concievably carry 14 but 8 is a much more realistic CAP loadout, Without the threat of a Soviet missile strike against the carriers, and with the super-restrictive ROE put upon commanders by politicians, the thinking is 60nm is enough. The designed range was 60nm, with confirmed intercepts at 110nm. Now to the current situation. The CVG ASW role is done by helos, and just helos. The new SH-60R will be aboard the carrier and the escorts and "can do it all" according to BuAir (Ok - it's now NASC, but I still like the old name!) The SuperBug is better than it's detractors will admit and less than its supporters will conceed. It is, however, the airframe of choice. We are stuck with it and it is a fine platform for the next version of the "New Navy" It can scout just as well as the S-3 just not as long, but there's the buddy pod to solve that problem. It can carry more missiles than the Tomcat and given political constraints they are more useful. Do I think the Super Bug is the perfect system, NO! But we have to make do with what we've got. The ideal situation would have been to build the A-6F and NATF in the 90s, but we had to have a "peace dividend" and the Navy took it's share of lumps. Now, If they could just develop a sonobuoy store, it'd become the perfect weapon system! James Corley AAA Hobby Supply www.aaahobby.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From "Harold Stockton" Subject Modellbau-Schatton 1/72 scale U-boat and S/E-boat details For those wishing to further improve the details on their Revell and Airfix 1/72 scale U-boat and S/E-boat details, you might want to visit the Modellbau-Schatton website at http//www.modellbau-schatton.privat.t-online.de/html/preisliste.html . Here are some interesting details from aerials, periscopes, turned brass gun barrels, torpedoes, etc 7201, 2 cm Flak-KWK 38 barrels 7202, 3,7 cm Flak 36/37 barrels 7234, Small explosive-motor-boat (EMB) 1 with 2 torpedoes 7238, Submarine details for the Revell Type-VII antenna and turned 2 cm Flak 38 barrels 7239, G7e torpedoes turned with photo-etched details for the Revell S-boat and Type-VII submarine 7241, 2 separate Aluminum antenna and Periscope for Revell Type-VII 7242, 6 Resin/Epoxy WB150 Depth charges for either the Revell Airfix S/E-boats 7243, Remote control "EMB" boat Linse (Lintel), Resin epoxy complete model 7250, MG. 131- 13 mm barrels 7251, MG. 151/20 barrels Harold Stockton ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From M Brown Subject Re 1/72 boats Try Westbourne Models, they have a range of them in resin including a 16' dinghy , 25' motor cutter & 27' whaler + some "civilian" lifeboats. Regards, Michael Brown ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From andrew jones Subject F/A - 18 super hornet HI there from from i have read & heard etc F/A-18 replacing the F-14... tecnically the Phoenix missile was a flop..it has/had a poor hit rate cant remember the rate F/A-18 replacing the EA-6 ..the F/A-18G will be a 2 man plane & most of the quipment on board is supposed to be automated, so hence can cut down a crew from 4 to 2 F/a-18 replacing the S-3 ..i think the plan that I read , was the Seahawk takes over the role, but the Hornet will be available with new missiles/torpedoes to give quick strike action against any subs should the seahawk fail to take out the threat F/A-18 replacing the KA-6 tanker..yep..its going under testing now with special buddy tanks, so the full will be taken out of the buddy tanks & then if need be taken from the regular fuel tanks Its just the way that the navy & US DOD is trying to keep everything the same, for example...US navy planes cant fire US airforce sidewinders..different plugs or something like that...so in the future all missiles will be universal for all US DoD sections regards Andrew ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From "Matthew Prager" Subject SCR-517a Radar Does anyone on the list have dimensional information for the SCR-517a (or 517c) radar as it was installed on U.S. PT Boats? The few pictures I've seen of the installation haven't been good enough for me to determine its measurements. Thanks, Matt Prager ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From George Levine Subject Re Ships Sinking Stern First? From "Kevin W. Woodruff" >> It's always been my supposition it's because the engineering spaces with the heavy reciprocating engines and/or turbines, and shafts and screws are generally located in the stern and therefore that would be the heaviest part of the ship. The forward spaces are usually cargo holds and passager/living spaces in the forecastle and more buoyant. << Generally, merchant ships sank stern first because the engine/boiler room was aft of amidships and, because of machinery constraints, could not be made short enough in length to meet the maximum allowed floodable length. The machinery itself was not particularly heavy when considering the volume of the machinery space. The problem is with the permeability of the machinery space. The relative emptiness of the space allowed more flooding water. George Levine Edgewater Florida ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From George Levine Subject Re Ships Sinking Stern First? From John Mianowski >> As one who has been involved in sinking model ships frequently (see http//www.ntxbg.org - my position on showing damage should be apparent ;-) I can shed some light, perhaps It depends. It depends on a lot of things, including the degree of compartmentalization, the general weight distribution (including cargo loading), hull shape, specific damage, & ballasting of the ship. I can say with pretty good certainty, after seeing many of the same ships sunk multiple times, that some ships tend to sink a certain way. Some of this is by design, at least in functional combat models - I doubt that any 11 naval architect ever gives 2 seconds of thought to how a ship performs as it's going down! For example, our club has a small fleet of identically-constructed Liberty Ships that all have extra lead shot ballast in their bows. Internal equipment is placed so that they sail with a good trim, but as they reach neutral buoyancy the bows drop, raising the sterns out of the water. This is always a crowd-pleasing sight, especially those times when the prop is still turning! Most of our model warships have more topweight than most transports, & tend to roll over when sunk, returning to upright on reaching neutral buoyancy. We don't allow compartmentalization like 11 warships have, but most of our warship models are pretty-well balanced fore-aft. One notable exception is my HMS Nelson which, due to its unusual main battery arrangement, has the heavy CO2 bottle & regulator stuffed all the way forward - it sinks bow-first, just like the Liberty Ships. Consider the Titanic example Moderate (if marginally effective) compartmentalization forward; progressive flooding of compartments leading to loss of buoyancy forward while maintaining buoyancy aft. Another well-known example, Szent Istvan Compartmentalized hull, although probably less well so than later ships - I presume that they would have been operating at the A-H Navy's equivalent to the USN's Condition Z at the time; damage to 1 side only, lots of topweight; loss of buoyancy on 1 side only (did they try to counter-flood?); ship maintains an "even keel" & rolls to starboard. Look at the internal layout of a specific ship & see where the dense equipment is located. Consider the load-out, too - if there are railroad locomotives, aircraft engines, etc. in the #1 hold, that may tip the balance forward under neutral buoyancy conditions, although I doubt that many ships would be loaded with much heavy cargo forward & light cargo aft, to keep good trim for sailing. One more thing that I've noticed, building & sailing models ships The stern's contribution to overall buoyancy of the ship is almost negligible. By that I mean where the hull starts to curve upward to clear shafts & rudders. I've developed my own rule of thumb for basic arrangement Find the midway point between the point where the hull starts to turn upward in the stern to the bow, & put the lead-filled boxes (batteries) there. So, consider the "typical" merchant ship Little buoyancy contribution in the stern to start with, dense equipment such as engines & aux. machinery mostly if not all aft of center, no compartmentalization to speak of, no heavy cargo loaded forward. It's not unreasonable to expect, as buoyancy becomes neutral, that the denser stern would tip downward, raising the bow. It isn't increased weight (of water) that sinks ships, it's loss of displacement. Any ship on the bottom weighs exactly the same as it did on the surface (if you can gather up all the pieces) - it just doesn't displace anywhere near the same amount of water as it once did. << I have some comments on the discussion by John Mianowski. I agree that there are many variables to be considered. As a naval architect I was not worried about which way the ship would sink. The concern was to prevent sinking within practical constraints. Calculations were conducted for all possible ways of sinking and the design prepared to minimize all of them. Unfortunately many factors were beyond the control of the designer operators leaving watertight doors open, drilling holes in watertight bulkheads, adding "goodies" high up over the life of the ship, not controlling the height of the center of gravity of cargo, etc. I don't think you intended to say it, but the models intended for combat do not represent the actual ships when it comes to their sinking characteristics. For instance, cargo weights would have to be spread out along the length of the ship to prevent breaking the ship in two, not concentrate as a lead weight in the bow. Regarding "the stern's contribution to overall buoyancy of the ship is almost negligible" note that the longitudinal distribution of buoyancy almost matches the longitudinal distribution of weight. My last point re "It isn't increased weight (of water) that sinks ships, it's loss of displacement." In actuality the calculations for subdivision and damaged stability may be done using the "Lost Buoyancy" method or the "Added Weight" method, although the lost buoyancy method is generally used. I hope I have added some useful additional thoughts to this thread. George Levine Edgewater Florida ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From George Levine Subject Re Japanese Warship Design From dan@lcpremiums.com >> I am not familar with this assertion. Please clarify. << Dan I don't know if I can clarify but will try. Many people assume that because the metric system is used in a particular industrial design product that these products will be identical in different countries. Each country has there own national standards for all sorts of things. Now we have the International Standards Organization trying to harmonize the designs. Before the ISO, and I believe still into the 1950s and 1960s there were differences. I no longer have specifics in my folder for Japan, but at one time you could not use a Japanese metric nut on a European metric bolt of the same nominal diameter because the thread pitch was different. Even in the US we had both the American National Standard and the Unified Standard nuts and bolts. While the same diameter and pitch there was a difference in tolerances. You can also look at wire and sheet metal gages used in the US. My copy of the page from Mark's Handbook show six different thicknesses for the same gage designation. In shipbuilding there was more of a difference since many things are specific to the industry and are produced for national consumption. Steel structural shapes comes to mind as they varied widely from country to country. My point, again, is to caution people that industrial standards varied from country to country, even if they are identified by metric names. Speaking of names and English or metric usage, we in the US use wooden "2 by 4s" in construction. They haven't measured two inches by four inches in probably 100 years, and are probably now cut using the metric system. But we still call them "2 by 4". I hope this clarifies and did not make things worse. I am working from memory mostly as I no longer have access to documents with the specifics. George Levine Edgewater Florida ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From Subject Re Seacat directors Thanks, and apologies for the delay in replying! You pretty much confirm the conclusion I had come to, that the shape of the Director is not related to the system! By the time I served all the open type directors had disappeared so I have no first hand knowledge. Also that I am right in that the GWS-22 used 904, several articles insist it is 903 and 904 was only used on GWS-21. I did not know of an ordnance museum, will have to look it up, I have a visit to Collingwood museum planned early next year where I hoped to find info on both the Seacat and Ikara directors. The Rothesey never carried GWS-20, I have that from a neighbour who served on four of the class pre and post refit. Naiad did indeed carry it, why I have no idea, the chronology of the build makes no sense since the later variant was available. GWS-23 "I think" (still chasing) may relate to the triple launcher variant developed for export (not to be confused with the triple Tigercat land based variant) Regards and appreciation, Mike ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From "Harold Stockton" Subject Re Sinking of HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse Though this information about the sinking of HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse may be new to some, and old hat to others, I thought that the material was at least worth considering. Here is an interview between Alan Matthews, whose father served on Repulse, and Lt Haruki Iki of the Kanoya Air Corps which was involved in the battle. His interview can be found at http//www.j-aircraft.com/research/iki.htm , and is quite fascinating. And, Lt Iki states that his Betty bomber was hit by 17 rounds of ammunition, so the AA fire was finding its mark, but to little or no effect. Another bit of information about the Japanese "Long Lance" torpedo can be found at http//www.j-aircraft.com/research/bryan_wilburn/ijnaf_torpedos.htm , and includes attack parameters that line up with the interview above and from the eye witnesses accounts. And to wrap the entire subject up about how futile it was to operate ships in an environment of no air cover and total enemy aerial superiority can be seen with the sinking of the IJN Yamato, given enough time and aircraft, any capital ship will go down. Harold Stockton ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the SMML site for the List Rules, Reviews, Articles, Backissues, Member's models & Reference Pictures at http//smmlonline.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- End of Volume