Subject: SMML VOL 2659 Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 02:09:29 +1000 SMML is proudly sponsored by SANDLE http//sandlehobbies.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1 Re 7 turret Fletcher? 2 Re CONSTELLATION 3 Re Cold War Deck Plans 4 Mystery weapon on official model of RN Type 15 frigate 5 Re 7 turret Fletcher? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From Steven P. Allen Subject Re 7 turret Fletcher? >> FWIW You need to remember that the Sumner/Gearing hull was not simply a lengthened Fletcher. There was also an increase in beam to increase displacement to accommodate the weight and to give space for the twin mounts and their under deck equipment. IOW no twin mounts on a Fletcher hull. << The Sumner/Gearing hull was one foot broader, and the width was not really necessitated by the twin mounts. A twin mount could have been fitted to the Fletcher hull (at least according to Friedman). Steve Allen ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From "Hank Lapa" Subject Re CONSTELLATION I read the Washington Post (ugh) article. Some errors there. I was avolunteer on the ship, first a few times while under reconstruction, and later as a guide for visitors when she finally returned to Pier 1 in Baltimore. There's a lot of confusing info out there. Annapolis was only one of her "homes," and not the most important one. If anyone's curious about the ship, I'll try to give the straight gouge for any questions. Hank ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From Richard Sweeney Subject Re Cold War Deck Plans >> It makes you wonder what's so secret about the external plans of these ships. I can understand keeping things like the reactors secret, or sensors even the or lower hull designs, but why on earth would the basic horizontal plan of the deck be so secret? And why is the profile unclassified? I've got several profile diagrams, and of course, the basic dimensions. And there are plenty of photos out there. You can get diagrams of SSBNs, which, if anything, should be even more secret. What on earth could they be trying to keep secret? FWIW, in the case of the Truxtun (CGN-35) I was going to try to convert a battered wreck of an Aurora Bainbridge into a Truxtun. I need some information on the width and placement of the hangar, the superstructure piece in front of the bridge, etc. In the case of the Virginia, I was actually thinking of making a Modified Virginia (CGN-42) class, and was just looking for some basic hull information. I have a hard time understanding why all this stuff is so secret. Of course, if somebody knows why it's all secret, they probably can't tell, because the reason is secret too. ;-) How does the old saying go? "I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you". << Hi David, In Many cases it's not that the Archives that don't want to release it, In many cases it's a Purely bureaucratic problem. As I said in many cases the companies that you need to sign off on Declassification no longer exist. In some cases things are locked until a number of people have passed away, for some reason or another. In the ship case I can't say any of the reasons I cited are the reasons that you haven't found the plans, they are just possibilities. Rich ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From Mike Potter Subject Mystery weapon on official model of RN Type 15 frigate In SMML 2593 Les Brown described a mystery weapon launcher seen in photographs of an apparently official model of the Type 15 frigate HMS Relentless. It resembles a quadruple 40mm mount with a cover and with four short, wide-bore tubes instead of guns. The photos are at the SMML site in the Reference Section under Misc References. This launcher could be an experimental anti-torpedo launcher known as "Ruler." "Ruler" is seen in a drawing of the RN's late-1940s design of a "cruiser-destroyer" in the traditional X turret location. Sketches of the "cruiser-destroyer" are in several books Norman Friedman, The Postwar Naval Revolution. David K. Brown and George Moore, Rebuilding the Royal Navy. Leo Marriott, RN Destroyers since 1945. Norman Friedman describes Ruler variously as a gun or a rocket launcher that was to fire explosive charges along the expected course of an incoming torpedo. The ambitious project evidently failed and was succeeded by another experimental anti-torpedo device that was not produced, either. This answer nullifies my previous suggestion on this list that the mystery launcher was for flares! The cruiser-destroyer mounted separate flare launchers. Cheers, Mike Potter ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From AAA Hobby Supply Subject Re 7 turret Fletcher? Me >> I couldn't find the reference anywhere in my quick scan, but I do think the 7-gun DD was one scheme considered for what became the Gearings, which were little more larger improved Fletchers. << William Shuey >> FWIW You need to remember that the Sumner/Gearing hull was not simply a lengthened Fletcher. There was also an increase in beam to increase displacement to accommodate the weight and to give space for the twin mounts and their under deck equipment. IOW no twin mounts on a Fletcher hull. << In fact I implied no such thing. The Sumner was the same length as the Fletcher, merely with a 14" wider hull to accomodate more modern weapons - hence larger. The Gearings had the 14' hull plug to stretch out the class and provide for more fuel, added deck space for weapons was a natural side benefit. Writings from BuShips and Babcock & Wilcox, as realyed in various books, bear out my position that the Sumner/Gearings were nothing more than improved and enlarged Fletcher classes. The primary point being that the Navy did not want to waste time in designing an entire class from scratch and ordered the basic engineering already done for the Fletchers to be used. For model building, even in 1/350 scale, the added beam of the 14" is minimimal (about 1mm 35.56mm vs 34.54mm ) which is barely noticable. Inj 1/700 - the discussed scale - the difference is 1/2mm. In this case the larger turrets wouldn't be too obviously large. If worse comes to worse, the modeler can add two strips of .005 plastic to either side of the model to increase the beam. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the SMML site for the List Rules, Backissues, Member's models & reference pictures at http//smmlonline.com Check out the APMA site for an index of ship articles in the Reference section at http//apma.org.au/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- End of Volume