lmagna

October 25th 1944 The last torpedo fired by Dick O'Kane of the US submarine Tang. A MK18 electric torpedo, the American copy of the German G7e torpedo that had been copied from German torpedos that had been recovered after running aground in 1942. It was the last torpedo onboard the Tang. It broached and curved to the left in a circular run. O'Kane fishtailed the sub under emergency power to clear the turning circle of the torpedo, but it struck Tang abreast the aft torpedo room approximately 20 seconds after it was fired. The first MK18 was fired under war conditions by Mush Morton in the Wahoo and Eugene Sands of the Spearfish in September of 1943. Sands reported that he "experienced enough torpedo problems to drive an ordinary man berserk": one sank, one broached and ran wild, three fishtailed at launch and hit the outer doors before disappearing, and seven missed astern Either O'Kane was a very bad shot or the torpedo guidance system on the MK 18 was still having issues in 1944 just like the MK 14. Suggested reading, Clear the Bridge!: The War Patrols of the U.S.S. Tang by Richard O'Kane.

Stands to reason when at least on paper this single ship carried the ability to take out or even sink a battleship if used properly. Think what could have happened if instead of the USS Johnston and Taffy Three vs. the Japanese it had been this ship maned with the same determined and trained crew under the same conditions in the battle of Taffy Three off Samar! In fact if the US had had a torpedo as effective as the Long Lance going into WWII the entire war would have been over in very short order even after the losses at Pearl Harbor.

PM sent

Isn't that the definition of shooting on the run?

Like I said I envy you in that. Unfortunately the proper modeling of the Providence takes a lot of research that mostly takes the form of verbal description, gleaning bits and pieces from a phrase here or there. I only wish I was better at it and was physically located where the real research was possible. I personally think there is much that Davis and Millar both missed and in the case of Millar adulterated in their designs. I think you were wise in using Millar's design for your Providence though. Sometimes I wish that I had done the same. It does not hurt that your skill level exhibited in this build is also right up there with any Providence models I have seen up until now including Brownell's!

That is some questions i can only partly answer Mike. Yes you can use the red car to build any of the three 1969 team cars as in fact it IS car #1 with the wing mounted in a lower position in order to make it legal for the 1970 Can Am season. By the same token, you could in theory by slightly modifying the rear deck and eliminating the wing all together make it into a 1967 M8A team McLaren car. This is possible because the 1968 #1 car was built from the two 1967 cars in 1968 and then sold and had the wing lowered in 1970 but was otherwise the same car driven by team McLaren in 1969. Is that confusing enough? The part I don't know is if the kit that you and Craig have has shortened wing struts to reflect the 1970 car or if as a kit maker they just kept the taller struts of the orange 1969 team cars. My kit has long struts for the orange 1969 cars. If they kept or supplied the taller struts then you can easily build either car by using the taller or shorter struts. If they only supply a tall or a shortened strut then you will have to lengthen or shorten the struts depending on the car and what part was supplied. How is that for confusion? You can also build the 1970 team McLaren M8D just by adding wing supports on the rear fenders! One of the reasons McLaren was so successful in Can Am was that unlike Jim Hall, he didn't show up each year with a new car design that was so innovative that it needed a full season to get the bugs ironed out. He showed up each year with an improved version of the car that won the year before with just enough modifications to keep it at the top of the completive pile. So with basically two bodies, a M6 and an M8 you can pretty much build any Can Am McLaren from their most winning years. The spoilers on the cars were at a fixed height. Jim Hall had brought the innovation to racing three years earlier with his Chaparral 2E, (Along with a few other innovations that were not as noticeable) and they were adopted by almost everyone both inside and outside Can Am racing. The struts were fixed in height and were mounted to the rear wheel hubs rather than the body like prior wings. McLaren was one of the few who avoided the concept until in order to remain dominant he decided to mount the high wing concept in 1969. The wing angle could be adjusted in the pits but unlike Hall's Chaparral it was not adjustable by the driver while being driven. Because of wings flying off of cars while racing, (Mostly F1 cars) the FIA, ( Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile) made both the movable wing AND the raised wing illegal and after 1969 no car would be able to run them. These rules also applied to the Can Am series of races by default. So in short high wing or low wing is a matter of years not an adjustment system. One of the things that still concerns me is the decals supplied for the Accurate Miniatures kits for Team McLaren. I have already discussed this with Craig. All of the pictures I have been able to locate for the 1969 team cars shows the numbers in the roundels a being black. Both the kit and the aftermarket sets of decals use blue numbers. I know that after Bruce died Denny ran most if not all of the team cars with blue numbers but I am not certain this was the case prior to 1970. I have seen a picture that if memory serves, shows all three team cars lined up side by side with blue numbers but I am not certain what year the picture is from or which book I have that I saw it in! Fine researcher I am! Of course, after spending FOREVER typing this up, (I am not all that fast at typing) I at last find the picture I was looking for of the three 1969 team cars in the same photo. Looks like my memory was wrong on the numbers as well. They are clearly black.

The full set of decals are available through https://www.indycals.net/decals/canam/70mclarenm8d.html The 1969 markings are virtually identical. They have a pretty nice set of tire decals as well.

Sorry Ken I was out for my wife's birthday celebration yesterday and didn't see this. My posts in #110 are as follows: #1 is color closeup of Brownell's model. It is noted as having black inner bulwarks and a deep barn red cap rail. #2 is a color picture of Davis's model with the yellow side rail and blue trim on the quarterdeck, and red painted inner bulwark like on a British naval ship. #3 is a black and white of Davis's model to show how simple and unrefined it is compared to Brownell's and how poorly maintained it is. #4 is close up in color of Davis's model. (#2,3,and 4 are the only pictures of Davis's model) #5 is an unknown modeler who chose to do a Admiralty plank on frame model based on Davis's plans using bare wood much like yours. It is also interesting, (At least to me) that he decided to add sweeps stored on the sides of the quarterdeck. This would have been a common feature of many small ships like Providence but seldom added. #6 Is a picture of the current ship showing the size of their choice of cannon. It also shows how many alterations have been made that would not have been present on the original. Danforth anchor with chain, higher bulwarks to keep silly land lubbers from falling overboard, motorized winch with capstans, steel frames for the bulwarks, etc. #7 Painting of the Providence escaping from the HMS Soleby but again using Davis's rendition as a source for the Providence. #8 Colored deck view of Brownell's Providence primarily showing the 10 gun arrangement. (The ports and locations are present in Davis's model but the guns are missing. (See picture #4) It is my personal opinion that the arrangement was eight guns on the main deck with originally two more on the quarterdeck and another two added later, also on the quarterdeck. This opinion comes from the story about Whipple when he first took command of the Katy removing the guns at FT George, (Fort Island). A letter from Captain James Wallace of HMS Rose and a long time enemy or Whipple and Brown, accused Whipple of the theft and that some of the guns stolen from under his nose had been used to rearm the Katy even though he does not mention the Katy by name. It appears that the number of 4 pounder guns reported as missing matches the number of guns on the Katy at that time. I would again have to locate it in my notes but I believe the number of guns was eight, and were the same guns taken off of the Katy and installed in the fort at an earlier date. This was increased to 10 guns when the Katy was taken over by the Congenital Congress and renamed Providence and later increased to 12 guns, possibly under Jones. #9 Brownell's model #10 Robert Innis's model also done from Davis's plans. #11 My notes say that this is also the Innis model but there are too many discrepancies between the two so I consider this to be an unknown, also based on Davis's plans. #12 Present day Providence under full sail. Hope that helps clarify the pictures. A little long winded but by now you should realize I am pretty much beyond help in that regard.

That's why you fire on the run!

With sights like that they probably don't even use tracers any more Mark. They can probably see every round in the thermal imager, along with the target! I agree, I think our MK1 eyeballs coupled with the standard issue biological computer are getting old and outdated.

3D printed, not resin cast. Micro Masters produces some phenomenal stuff. At least in my limited opinion. https://micromaster.co.nz/

Light machine gun mounts have sure evolved over the last fifty years! That mount is a long way from hanging a M-60 from a chain attached to the ceiling!

I enjoy reading about his exploits far more than I liked learning about Jones. He didn't seem to have the ego or the temper of Jones and was much more liked by his crews. He was every bit as enterprising as Jones, and certainly contributed heavily to the Colonial cause, but for some reason, like you say, history seems to have largely ignored him. Probably not much chance of me getting out to the east coast any time soon. I used to be able to get out there once a years or so to visit our oldest son and family in Massachusetts and later Pennsylvania but they moved to California a few years ago and we don't go out that way anymore. I am still raising two grandchildren and that keeps me from pursuing many of the activities that normal 70+ year old people seem to be able to do like cruises and trips abroad. And then as you say there is the CORONA affect that keeps everything in limbo. I am partial to the Brownell version as well. It is far better made, (In my opinion) than Davis's and even though it is the proper overall black color, still somehow shows enough subtle highlights to keep it visually interesting. The Innis model is also nice but the bare wood hull seems a little boring to me for some reason. I still think that the best workmanship is on the plank on frame version. It also is the only version that has sweeps, something that would seem common for a ship of Providence's size but is never mentioned or modeled by builders of her. But back to what started all this. I think that the photos I have shown support my statement that your build is as good or better than what can be found in museums. It seems that at least in this case the fame of the builder is more important than the subject modeled.

They find mummies that are thousands of years old and still have hair. I also think that hair was a common item used in the rigging of prisoner ships hundreds of years ago. Just don't start showing up with dark human hair rigging on your builds! I know what color Phyllis's hair is!

So would you build her loaded with seaplanes, or as she was sunk, loaded with crated P-40s on the lower deck/hold and ready to fly P-40s on the "flight deck"? I think she was carrying 32 P-40s but I don't know how many were actually assembled on the deck and the rest were still in crates. I'm not certain the half deck could hold 32 P-40s. The Sea Witch was also carrying 27 more crated P-40s that made it to Java but I don't think many if any made it to flying condition before the loss of Java. It would have been far better if the planes and pilots had been sent to Colombo, their original intended destination. p

Get out your reading glasses, or better yet invest in an electron microscope for the Veteran Models small caliber guns. I have a couple of their 1.1" guns and I have my doubts if they can even be built! My kids actually prefer Ramen!

When I was doing my research on the Providence it soon became clear that if one wants to do any credible work or interpretation on the ship that they would have to go to he east coast to do so. ALL of the information that is worth anything is located in the New England states. I envy you that ability. Here is a little more I have been able to locate from my second thumb drive: Brownell's Providence again, (I consider his model to possibly the best reference available that is based on his and Davis's research.) This is Davis's model from the same plans: If you enlarge the Davis model picture you can see that the quality is not as good as Brownell's effort. Plus it looks like it has not been as well cared for over the years. both of these models date from the 30s. Again, not certain who did this one but it is obviously also from the Davis plans, (How I wish I could locate those plans!) and well done at that. Your build reminds me of this level of craftsmanship without being plank on frame. Of course one can add a few pictures of the present day Providence, (The one you are using the plans from and before her refit after the storm damage) for reference. John Paul Jones's escape from the Royal Navy frigate HMS Soleby on September 1, 1776. Executed by First Mate John Rathbun. Rathbun later took command of the Providence and more than matched Jones's reputation. He also later commanded the frigate Queen Of France came up with the idea of pretending to be a British frigate and over a couple of days along with the Ranger and Providence captured 10 ships under escort without firing a shot! Three of the ships were recaptured before reaching port but the prize money for the other eight amounted to over a million dollars! Brownell's build again My notes say this is another view of Brownell's build This is the Innis model from Davis plans My notes say Innis again but there are a number of subtle differences and I am not certain that is the case. Back to the present day, (Well a few years ago anyway)

I have used it as electrical wiring a couple of times as well. Just glue it to the cabin wall or hull, mast, or whatever, attach one end to an LED and the other to power. Paint over the wires and no one can see them unless you point them out.

I always thought that building a steel ship using metal would be the ultimate in scale. Looking forward to updates on your build.

Living dangerously I see. What is your favorite flower so I can sent it to your funeral? My wife has red hair so that excuse wouldn't work for me anyway. I have some 80 micron corona wire I have used several times. It is tungsten and pretty tough.

Here are some quick links to a few of my notes. Sorry but it will take a little time to compile everything I collected on the Providence/Katy. I kept it all but sometimes it was a little disorganized and now it appears that I also have to go back at least a couple of computers to retrieve all the saved tidbits. Here is most but not all of the Mystic Seaport photos. They have a very hard to research data base. First off Brownell's Providence done from Davis's 193? plans. It appears that these plans were readily available back in the 30s but I cannot find a present day copy and very little reference to them. Even in the NRG archives. Scroll down for the Providence http://mobius.mysticseaport.org/results.php?term=providence&module=objects&type=keyword&x=0&y=0 Next is a couple of better pictures of a model by Robert I Innis in 1932-33. What is nice besides the better pictures, is that they give the scale and measurements of the model. http://mobius.mysticseaport.org/results.php?term=Katy&module=objects&type=keyword&x=7&y=13 Next is a model from an unknown source and supposedly at 1:100 https://www.schiffe-und-mehr.com/die-welte-der-schiffe/kriegsschiffe/sloop-providence/ He also has an article you can click on at the top of his blog that has a bit of history on the Providence but unless you read German will have to be translated. I did that at some point but I haven't located it yet either. Here is an interesting history done by The Rhode Island Historical Society in 1943 that is in English. The last page has another picture of Brownell's Providence. http://www.rihs.org/assetts/files/publications/1943_July.pdf Here are a few pictures of another model. I didn't note who the builder was. There is a possibility that the information was not available. My suspicion is that they are the Coral HMS Resolution done as a Colonial Sloop. I am not certain if they were intending to represent the Providence or not but I thought there were enough ideas and the model was done well so I kept the pictures as part of my Providence research. I will continue looking for my Davis Providence pictures, I only have a couple of more thumb drives and a hard drive to dig through. I think I spent a little over a year gathering what I could on the Providence with a few spurts now and then when the mood hit me.

Just pure selfishness's on my part. #1, I had way too many of this car in my stash. #2, I knew that the chances of me getting to it anytime in the future were slim but i was still interested in it. Well the Team McLaren version anyway, (That by-the-way, I still have). #3 I had, and still have my doubts about my personal ability to make a good representation of this kit, I knew that it is a very hard kit to build, and unless left open has some fit challenges with the body. So it was only logical to come up with the idea of supplying my excess stock to a few modelers that would possibly supply me with my 1960s McLaren fix by letting me look over their shoulder as it comes together! My biggest hope is that you and Craig, along with the other followers here on the forum get as much enjoyment from the builds as I am in finally watching it happen.

Hello EFFIE It has been quite some time since I have been active in RC power boats but what Nirvana is very true. It would be much more helpful if you were a little more specific in just what you were looking for. "RC" capable boats or ships come in as many forms as you can possibly imagine and probably a few that you can't. You can take a number of plastic kits on the market and equip them with the required RC gear and run them. There are a number of wooden kits available that are either designed or adaptable to RC, but your aversion to resin and the smells involved would kind of preclude that. Caldercraft and a few other companies put out a number of very nice scale models in sizes and design that are very suitable for RC. Some are just hulls that you need to scratch build everything else and some are full kits that pretty much include everything you need to build the ship. In both cases you can expect a pretty hefty price tag, for what you get. Then there are kits like the tug Southampton that is very popular that is available in many forms all of the way up to fully ready to run with all you need except batteries. Nice looking modern harbor tug and a forgiving design. You mention your grandson. I have no idea what his age or interests are but having had a few children over the years I know that they are almost never interested in scale but are more inclined to want speed and in some cases warships, again, depending on their age. In most cases these two features in RC boats are not compatible with novice youngsters who seem to have only two movements on the transmitter, full speed forward/reverse and full left/right on the rudder. I started my kids with a pool noodle bent into a horseshoe shape around a tupperware container. they could run into almost anything without hurting it! I could go on endlessly with suggestions but like Per says without more specific information it is really too broad of a question.

Depends on the museum! Some of them are stuck up and you might have some problems but any museum that can recognize quality and skill would grab this build up in a heartbeat. Look up the pictures of the Providence Model in the Boston Museum Of Fine Arts made by Charles Davis and then compare it to the Providence made from the same plans by Alfred Brownell in Mystic Seaport museum. Your build is just as nice as either of them and much better than Davis's version. Possibly Brownell's as well.

Are you certain Mike? Sanity may be a little like beauty, it's all in the eyes of the beholder. All kidding aside, this really came out nicely and it is truly one to be proud of. Looking forward the the next in the series.