Author Topic: Resin conversions (Read 13153 times)

bill_c · « **on:** 09 Aug , 2009, 17:26 »

I have been looking ahead to a Gato-class build, and am very interested in the Wahoo because of all I have read about it. There are two resin conversions, one from Nautilus and the other from Iron Bottom Sound. Both seem to show the conning tower with the earlier closed periscope array. But the photos from mid-war show the "open" array with separate tubes for the two scopes, etc.

This is very confusing to me, and I was wondering what guidance y'all might offer?

Division 6 · « **Reply #1 on:** 09 Aug , 2009, 19:07 »

No 2 boats where the same and even more so after each refit.
As the war went on they would make modifications to the boats.

The conning towers or fairwaters where cut down on many boats to lessen the silhouette.
It also helped with quicker diving as did the addition of extra openings long the upper structure.

The weapons would change or move, radars would be upgraded, etc...

You will have to decide what patrol you wish to depict her as, than research that date.
Keep in mind she's a Mare Island built boat where if your building the Revell 1/72 model it's based on a Electric Boat so there will be differences in the details of the hull especially the limber holes down the sides.

Eric...

bill_c · « **Reply #2 on:** 11 Aug , 2009, 09:39 »

Yes, I am aware the boats changed. But IBS, for example, offers multiple reduced fairwater options. It's pretty tough picking the right one from the few detailed photographs I've seen of Wahoo. Is there a source of information for each boat that would show (or describe?) the modifications at each stage of the war?

I want to be accurate, but to a certain extent, I find definitive answers to this elusive. Everyone says, trying to be helpful, "it depends on which boat and when during the war." OK, I get that. But where does one go to get more concrete help or hints?

The limber holes problem is a vexing one. I believe IBS offers templates for correcting this problem. Has anyone used them and can comment on their success or failure?

Division 6 · « **Reply #3 on:** 11 Aug , 2009, 11:09 »

There is no easy answer or quick find.
I've been looking for over 2 years for my boat of choice and only have under a dozen pix of her and a set of blueprints I just found.

The Wahoo is pretty famous so it should be easier to find stuff on her, they always seem to pop up when I do sub searches.

Places off the top of my head.
Google using assorted search words like WWII submarine, SS-238, USS Wahoo, etc...

NavSource
Google source:Life
US Navy
Through the looking glass
any of the U-Boot sites
Sub memorial sites
Veterans sites may have former crew members listed (from earlier cruises)

Floating Drydock may have blue prints, check in the G section.
Gato-Class Submarines in Action by Squadron has a few pix probably the same ones on Navsource and a side plate drawing.
Don't bother with US Submarines 1941-45, the book has nothing of use in it.
There might be some books Periscopefilm or torpedo junction.

Eric...

bill_c · « **Reply #4 on:** 11 Aug , 2009, 12:13 »

Floating Drydock has some awesome stuff, thanks.

Division 6 · « **Reply #5 on:** 11 Aug , 2009, 12:17 »

Looking at the kits offered I would have to say that the Nautilus version is the later (time of sinking) version where the ISB are early and early cut down although with the cut down the shear covers should be removed.

Eric...

bill_c · « **Reply #6 on:** 11 Aug , 2009, 12:26 »

Thanks, that's helpful. The "Shoot the Sunza Bitches" photo shows the open shears.

IBS offers a PM and EB limber hole template. I presume neither would work for MI? IBS offers a Wahoo limber hole template with its conversion kits, but they appear to be Early War even model #2.

Division 6 · « **Reply #7 on:** 11 Aug , 2009, 12:48 »

I just looked through my files folder and I have image files of the templates.

I think they are the pix from Nautilus.
They sell templates for the holes at the bottom of this order page.
http://nautilusmodels.com/orderpage-USA.htm

Just save image and print them to fit your boat.

Eric...

bill_c · « **Reply #8 on:** 11 Aug , 2009, 12:59 »

"Just save image and print them to fit your boat."

Thanks for the suggestion, but I'd feel a little queasy doing that. I want to pay for using someone else's work.

How does one use these templates? Is it "fill, sand and drill," or are the holes there at all on the kit?

Division 6 · « **Reply #9 on:** 11 Aug , 2009, 13:42 »

The kit has plates for the sides that you could either fill or replace with sheet styrene.

Just make sure the templates actually match the boat before you buy.
Some boats had those modified as the war progressed.

If not use a printout as a basic guide and make your own matching the actual boat.

Eric...

Division 6 · « **Reply #10 on:** 11 Aug , 2009, 14:00 »

I just compared the template drawing to the boat.
The front half may be correct but the back is very diffirent.
Looks like you will have to do your own drawings from scratch.

Eric...

Division 6 · « **Reply #11 on:** 11 Aug , 2009, 14:17 »

You will also have to change deck fittings and correct the marker buoy locations and shape to round.
both capstans need to be centered (aft one may actually be a bit to starboard), shutters on stern tubes, escape trunk opening moved to port side, she had an under deck boat storage on the port side, flat style prop guards, front torpedo shutters are probably different.

At least you won't have to move the anchor to the other side.

Her sister ship was the Whale so more reference may be gleaned from her.

bill_c · « **Reply #12 on:** 11 Aug , 2009, 15:39 »

(Groan).

IBS has deck fittings.

Someone needs to write a book about the process.

Division 6 · « **Reply #13 on:** 11 Aug , 2009, 16:45 »

Sadly the only builds you see do very little corrections since most are oob.
Mainly because of lack of AM parts, one of the reasons I waited so long to start building mine.

Had I not started researching them I would have built as is not knowing the rich history of these fine vessels.
Fortunately the one I picked doesn't need to much modification, built a month ahead of the Cobia at the same yard.
I would love to eventually build other boats.

If I could find pictures and references it would be really neat to do one with the under deck boat being launched.

Every one is building the German boats because they are cheaper and smaller yet they go out of their way to make them accurate.
Tons of AM parts for the Gerry's.

Rokket · « **Reply #14 on:** 12 Aug , 2009, 04:13 »

Wahoo was built by Mare Island I think, non Electric Boat, which means as Eric says, you need a new limber pattern. You can get a pattern and make them, but...AMP are working on a PE set so you dont have to do the work, with raised rivets, much like Eduard's, except ours will be accurate for WII and not Post War...

aptivaboy · « **Reply #15 on:** 12 Aug , 2009, 18:25 »

The problem with filling in the side limber hole plates is that the whole piece was shaped differently from Electric Boat to Portsmouth plans. The EB side plates are more angular and straight up front, while the Portsmouth/Mare Island ones fitted snugger, for lack of a better word to the top of the circular hull section, following the curve of the hull better. This was perhaps because (as in Alden) EB and Portsmouth had different ways of constructing the pressure hull, one yard building a more circular pressure hull and the other slightly more ovoid from top to bottom. That's IF I read Alden right, and I may well not have.

If you just fill in and rescribe the kit plating, then you'll basically have an EB side plate with Portsmouth limber holes that won't look right. Nautilus Models has side plates that may work for you. I've not physically handled them, but they're listed on their website.

Robert

Rokket · « **Reply #16 on:** 13 Aug , 2009, 03:16 »

I'm not seeing that in photos, I might be misunderstanding. Can you elaborate or do you have any photo or sketch comparisons that might help my small brain?

aptivaboy · « **Reply #17 on:** 13 Aug , 2009, 23:13 »

If you look at an EB boat, the side casing at the bow where those D-shaped holes are is fairly straight and leaves some space between itself and the hull sides. This photo of Cod shows what I mean http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/0822405.jpg.

Compare the same area to Drum: http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/0822801.jpg . The casing is shaped differently aft of the dive planes, plunging further down the hull than on an EB boat (Guardfish: http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/0821703.jpg) The whole casing from bow to stern fits much closer or snugger to the hull sides on a Portsmouth boat, conforming to the hull sides much closer. They're similar, but the shapes are different enough. The kit pieces would need extensions to make them fit closer down the model's sides to properly represent a Portsmouth boat. Otherwise, that larger EB slot between casing and hull would exist on the model, especially aft of that bow region to the stern. The Guardfish photo really shows off that slot compared to Drum.

I've read somewhere that the actual curvature from side casing to main deck is sharper on one plan's boats than the other, but I've not seen any plans to factually support that. That may be truth or Gato urban legend.

Robert

Division 6 · « **Reply #18 on:** 14 Aug , 2009, 07:34 »

I see what he's saying.
The side skirt is almost flush with the pressure hull on the MI and Pnsy where the EB and Manitowoc sides don't make contact with the hull, there is a gap.

Eric...

bill_c · « **Reply #19 on:** 14 Aug , 2009, 12:20 »

I'm not seeing it in the photos, as the left-hand portion of the MI plates look to have the same gap, but that's not my real point.

1.) Where the HELL would I get the plans for the MI limber holes, LOL?

2.) AMP has a bunch of projects in the pipeline. When might they be realized? I know the torpedo tube corrections are next on the list. This resin kit sounds wonderful, I'm not a rabid scratchbuilder.

Division 6 · « **Reply #20 on:** 14 Aug , 2009, 13:08 »

The MI sides appear to only be an inch or so from the hull all the way down the side where the EB opens up near the bow.
The MI has the limber holes instead of the large gap at the bottom.
In the picture posted above the top pic is tword the rear of the Silversides where the bottom pic if twords the front of the Cobia.

Spend some time looking through the different images at NavSource and you will notice the differences between yards.

Check with floating drydock to see if he carries prints of MI boats.

Eric...

Division 6 · « **Reply #21 on:** 14 Aug , 2009, 13:11 »

Notice that there is no gap on the Wahoo along the side.
http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/0823816.jpg

Rokket · « **Reply #22 on:** 14 Aug , 2009, 23:40 »

It looks like even some Portsmouth boats had variation, some with a a swooping curve just past the bow dive planes too. Different boats seem to be slightly different. From What Ted Swiders says, the Pressure hull was slightly different. The first 2 yards past the bow plane def seem to angle in, yet extend slightly farther, implying a slighlt different curve to the hull there (because otherwise extended panels would have to flare OUT not in).

aptivaboy · « **Reply #23 on:** 16 Aug , 2009, 00:24 »

Yup, that graphic shows off exactly what I was trying to say about the hull shape (but did it far better!!

. For a look at how the section aft of the bow planes was so variable, look at a photo of Pampanito, there. She had room for three rows of limber holes; her casing really bulged and plunged, there. The oval limber holes also vary in size along the casing. The photo on the cover of the Classic Warships book really shows it off. A number of the Portsmouth Balaos had their casings pinched-in casing aft of the tower, and then bulge out again just in front of the after deck gun location, creating a wavy look to their decks in plan view. This is why I'm so paranoid about even attempting a Portsmouth boat, although there are many that I'm interested in.

Robert

Rokket · « **Reply #24 on:** 16 Aug , 2009, 01:08 »

Yes, good points, I was slow to get it!

I think a PE curved guide for the hull shape would do it - modelers could adjust the hull slightly - perhapsnot true-scale correct, but at least to suggets the hull was a Portsmouth...

bill_c · « **Reply #25 on:** 16 Aug , 2009, 11:08 »

I presume all this means the Eduard PE set EDU 53029 is a waste of money?

Division 6 · « **Reply #26 on:** 16 Aug , 2009, 12:49 »

It will put pretty little rivet patterns on an EB boat.

Their decking is post war.
I have their detail set that has some nice stuff like the drain holes under the chain locker, bit's for detailing the guns and parts of the fairwater.
It also includes screens to go over the ballast tank openings that from my understanding wasn't done till after the war.
I plan to use a couple of them for the sea chest covers towards the rear.

Eric...

bill_c · « **Reply #27 on:** 16 Aug , 2009, 13:03 »

Quote from: Division 6 on 16 Aug , 2009, 12:49

Their decking is post war.

I have their detail set that has some nice stuff like the drain holes under the chain locker, bit's for detailing the guns and parts of the fairwater.
It also includes screens to go over the ballast tank openings that from my understanding wasn't done till after the war.
I plan to use a couple of them for the sea chest covers towards the rear.

Which detail set? Do you mean EDU53028? Or are your referring to more than one???

You guys know all this stuff but I'm pretty knew to Gato-class boats, so please be specific about the sets you're referring to.

Mike K · « **Reply #28 on:** 16 Aug , 2009, 13:38 »

Bill C., if you're doing a Portsmouth Balao or Tench, drop me an email. I've got a few drawings and might be able to help. <<mkeatingss@cox.net >>

Mike K.

Division 6 · « **Reply #29 on:** 16 Aug , 2009, 14:21 »

http://www.squadron.com/ItemDetails.asp?item=EU53023

aptivaboy · « **Reply #30 on:** 17 Aug , 2009, 13:32 »

Bill,

http://www.squadron.com/ItemDetails.asp?item=EU53023 is pretty good. Its mainly for the bridge, and is really good for a midwar Gato. Used in conjunction with the White Ensign sets, it can really dress up a model.

http://www.squadron.com/NoStock.asp?item=EU53029 is a big improvement over the plain kit sides. It shows the rivet pattern on the side plates, but I'm not sure it replicates the overlapping lap joints. Anyone?

http://www.squadron.com/ItemDetails.asp?item=EU53028 is a problem child. Its basically a redo of the kit's plastic deck, but in etched metal. The problem is that the kit and Eduard etched deck are both for postwar boats with the oval marker buoys. There were other differences, I'm sure. I've compared it to wartime photos of the Cod, and the after deck isn't terribly close. If you want to build a postwar boat, then its awesome. If you want a wartime boat, then not so much. It all depends on how accurate you want to be.

Hope this helps,

Robert

bill_c · « **Reply #31 on:** 17 Aug , 2009, 14:07 »

Thanks, Robert. Can one use the hinge plates for detailing without the suspect limber holes?

How accurate? As accurate as possible. Not interested in the kit maker's short cuts. Grrrrr.

But man, whatever happened to OOB?

Division 6 · « **Reply #32 on:** 17 Aug , 2009, 18:37 »

If you go to the Eduard site you can look at the PDF files for the different PE kit assemblies.
Just type Gato in the search bar and all 3 kits show up.

http://www.eduard.cz/

Eric...

bill_c · « **Reply #33 on:** 18 Aug , 2009, 08:19 »

Quote from: Division 6 on 17 Aug , 2009, 18:37

If you go to the Eduard site you can look at the PDF files for the different PE kit assemblies.
Just type Gato in the search bar and all 3 kits show up.

http://www.eduard.cz/

Eric...

I have done that previously, but it doesn't clarify things. One person says the hinge plates are good, another says the limber holes are wrong. It's a lot of money to waste on the wrong item.

Division 6 · « **Reply #34 on:** 18 Aug , 2009, 15:08 »

I personally didn't bother with them not only because of cost but also because they would still need to be modified to match my boat.
If you want rivets you would probably be better off getting those decals and doing it yourself using pictures and blueprints as a guide.

E...

Rokket · « **Reply #35 on:** 27 Aug , 2009, 03:28 »

I've been measuring proportions, and here's my new thought - the Portsmouth casing was not simply angled, but CURVED - see attached pic.

This means that whether the p-hull was slightly diff or not, it wouldn't necessarily have to be different to fit an extension.

By dropping (at least part) of the Revell hull casing (the main EB limber section), a PE Portsmouth section could be put in place and curved with new supports behind (rather than cladding like the Eduard).

TAS · « **Reply #36 on:** 27 Aug , 2009, 08:52 »

Hey guys,
I've been reading with interest all the comments about the P/MI vs EB limbers etc. and all I can say is more research awaits. I've looked a a lot of pics and I've got some opinions on the subjuct (subject to revisions when I'm proven wrong). I don't feel the pressure hull influenced the superstructure very much at this point. Pics show the P/MI boats early on were sloped very evenly and did not have the "curvy" bit that shows prominently in some pics. Look at Silversides, Wahoo, and other early examples. I do see in Alden's book on p 116 a pic of Balao (Ports) launching in 1942 with the "swoopy" surerstructure but without the extrs row of limber holes. It appears to be something of a bulge in the super. plating although I don't know the reason for it. I don't know if MI turned to this configuration at the same time frame or later or even at all. The EB boats seem to not have this particular thing going on. It all points to more research to do. I think there was not much mods. done to the deck or superstructure save the obvious limber variations and the tipped dive planes. I think it comes down to 3 basic versions of the superstructure.
1. EB style with limbers not following the bottom curve and the long drainage slot all the way aft.
2. P/MI early with limbers in a shallow slope, bottom edge gently curving almost meeting the hull, limber holes aft.
3. P poss. MI '42-'43 with the "bulge" and "curvy" bottom edge, original style limber holes fore and aft.

All of the above were modified at intervals with additional limber holes both in the superstructure and roundover.
Decking changed in mid war as teak became scarce and deck details are hard to find. The most obvious changes that affected theboats appearance were the changes both at re-fits and during construction to the fairwater and shears. Armament seemed to be at the commanders discretion.
More work to be done and patience is required for optimum results.