Are Balao bows different than Gato bows?

[aptivaboy]

I ask because I've run into a snag. I've taken scans of the Hardhead/Perch II shell expansion plans from the Floating Drydock. The plans are identical, but the Perch II versions are much better in quality. After scanning, correcting for scale, and printing out a corrected and properly sized plan from frame 22 to the bow, it looks like the bow is shaped differently than the Revell Gato model I'm using as the base kit. I've gotten the torpedo tube doors, bow bouyancy drainage holes, and a few weld lines to line up as cardinal points, so it looks like the corrected scan is certainly close enough for government work. However, the model's bow is about half a centimeter longer at the bullnose than the corrected scan; perhaps a smidge more. The area just in front of the two upper torpedo tubes is also curvier, for lack of a better word, curving further forward before curving upwards towards the bullnose. The Revell model is definitely shaped differently than the plans I'm working from. So, here's the question: were the Electric Boat-plan Balaos ever so slightly differently shaped at their bows than the Electric Boat-plan Gatos?  I have found a few weld line differences between the Hardhead/Perch II plans and the Cobia/Revell kit, so it may be possible, but before I go sanding and chopping the bow even more than I already have to redo the torpedo tube shutters, I thought it prudent to ask.

Thanks for any help or ideas,

Robert

[Mike K]

That's a good question, Roberet. I don't have a pat answer, for you. I always thought that the Balaos were Gatos with thicker hulls.
   While there were design changes, as the war progressed, I see no reason for a change to the bow tip and bullnose. To the bext of my knowledge, even the Tenchs, had the same nose.
Let me dig through my drawings, and see what I can find. If I find differences, I'll let you know.
However, my first though is, what's more likely is, that it's a error on Revell's end.

Mike K (DBF)

[aptivaboy]

Thanks Mike, I appreciate it. From comparing the Hardhead/Perch II plans to Gato plans, the framing appears to have remained the same. However, the Gato kit bow looks more cleaver-like, for lack of a better word, with a cutwater curve but not a dramatic one. However, the Hardhead/Perch II plans show a more sabre-like profile to the cutwater. The plans also show the bow plane hole to be slightly too high on the kit's hull, but fixing that might be more trouble than its worth. 
 
Another odd thing: the after expansion pretty much lines up with the Revell weld lines. There are some positional differences, but mostly not enough to write home about - mostly. The bow, however, has some noticeable differences. The vertical weld at frame 18 isn't circumferential, for example, like it is on the kit. Perhaps EB/Manitowac may have prefabbed here to such a degree that by this point in the war they were able to dispense with the extra sections and welding? One thing is for sure - anyone wanting to build an EB/Manitowac Balao will need to recheck the weld lines if they really want to detail this beast.

Robert

[Rokket]

hmmm...I'm beginning to think that EVERY boat was built by a separate shipyard! Maybe there were phantom ones, or night yard workers came in and did things completely differently!

[Division 6]

At the rate they where being cranked out they may have been night crews although you never see light fixtures in any yard pix.

Eric...