Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Lexington, MA, USA

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The Floating Drydock's Plan Book for USS Missouri says that during her shakedown in 1944 the ship was Measure 32, Design 22D. In January 1945, on her way to the Pacific, all vertical surfaces were repainted to Haze Gray (5-H), with a Navy Blue (5-N) band on the hull parallel to the waterline from the lowest point of the sheer down [to the boot topping]. All horizontal surfaces were Deck Blue (20-B). And they say she finished the war with that pattern. Later they say that some attempt was made before the surrender ceremony to strip the paint off the decks. Below the waterline was "Dark Anti-fouling Paint" with a 4 foot wide black boot topping. Finally, the Floating Drydock's book says that in early 1946 the ship was painted Haze Gray on vertical surfaces and Deck Blue on the horizontals. Paul Stillwell, in "Battleship Missouri, An Illustrated History", mostly agrees with the above except that he is quite clear that the deck in the area of the signing was freshly painted with a dark blue paint "like the other decks". Later he has a picture *after* the signing, on the way back to Pearl Harbor, of paint being stripped from the decks.
  2. A great reference is "The Floating Drydock's Plan Book Gato & Balao Class Submarines". I think this (and other Plan Books - they're all worth having) is still available as a pdf from http://www.floatingdrydock.com. On p. 95 there is an article on camouflage which basically agrees with black for Gatos at least up to mid 1944. Everything visible from the air had to be black and below the waterline black anti-fouling paint was to be used. Sheen isn't mentioned but I think it should be matte. Late in the war more complicated schemes that involved various shades of gray were introduced but (the article goes on to say) some boats were black throughout the war. Bob
  3. Thanks, that's the direction I'm leaning, too: Wasa's deadeyes and the other Swedish example Baker referred to provide solid (literally) support for the choice.
  4. I am working on building Model Shipway's "Mayflower" and have lately been obsessing about the correct shape for her deadeyes. William A. Baker, writing in 1958, says in "The New Mayflower" (pp. 110-111) that they have "a slight melon-seed shape, flat sides, and are quite thin". He bases this on period deadeyes recovered in Sweden and his description matches what I see in photos of Wasa. In contrast to Baker, Brian Lavery says in the AOS "The Colonial Merchantman Susan Constant 1605" that "the deadeye itself should presumably be round, as heart shaped deadeyes had gone out of use by that time." He goes on to say that the face was "quite rounded". He does not cite a specific authority at that point in the book but earlier he lists R.C. Anderson's "The Rigging of Ships in the Days of the Spritsail Topmast" as a reference and Anderson supports the round deadeye (p. 93 of his 1st edition). Anderson also talks about Dutch deadeyes of the same period and I don't see anywhere that he says they differed from English design. (I'm interested in the answer to this question for 17th Century Dutch ships, too.) So, is there a settled opinion now on what's right for Mayflower and for the first 1/2 of the 17th century in general? I searched on MSW to see if this was a topic that had previously been thrashed out but didn't find that it had been. Bob
  5. Thanks for all the photos. I have my own build of Mayflower going, somewhat behind yours, so you are helping me quite a bit. I've taken some photos of Mayflower II over the past 3 years during its overhaul at Mystic Seaport. I doubt that they'll help you - mostly they show framing and planking - but I've got some closeups of the main top and masthead before the mast was stepped along with other odds and ends of things. I can send them to you or post them in the appropriate place on MSW if there's any interest. Bob
  6. I'd be careful about expelling outside: makeup air has to come from somewhere and if you live in a cold climate, with a furnace or fireplace, the makeup air might come down the flue pulling carbon monoxide from the furnace with it. My dust collection (for the big tools) exhausts inside but through a HEPA filter.
  7. Thanks. Yes, it is big - about 39". It'll be kind of a puzzle what to do with the next one I make that's that large.
  8. The kit was from a company named Tehnoart, based in Riga, Latvia. They're now out of business but for a few years produced some amazing kits. The kit I used for the Peary was actually "#13" out of a limited run of 12. As best I can tell they produced 7 or 8 commercial kits of which two were relatively high volume: 1:192 kits for Sumner and Gearing class destroyers (I built a Sumner one before the Peary). Are you building a Houston? Bob
  9. Thanks for the compliments. Peary is important to me: I served on the 3rd Navy ship named after Robert E. Peary and intend to make models of all three. I did FF-1073 25 years ago. DD-226 here was finished recently. Sometime in the future I'll do DE-132. The Technoart kit I started with was a fiberglass/resin/brass kit they advertised as USS Ward and the kit as supplied would build what a typical Clemson looked like in the early '30s (in my opinion). By 1941 there was a wide divergence in how they all looked. So the challenge I ended up with was to choose a date and build the model so that it matched the way that Peary looked on that date. I chose October 1941 because that month she collided with USS Pillsbury on maneuvers and had to go into the shipyard for repairs. The war started before those repairs were complete and she was sunk in Feb. 1942 with no chance to ever have more than bandaids for the accumulating damage. Information that I could find on her appearance in those months was more than nothing but I still ended up making some guesses that aren't going to all be correct. Like the paint scheme or the absence of the fantail 3" AA gun.
  10. Built from a kit of USS Ward, this is how I believe Peary looked in October, 1941. That was the last time the ship was in operationally complete condition.
  11. Toni, the frames in the kit have etched marks along the edge but you don't mention them in your writeup. Should we ignore them? I've attached one example of what I'm talking about. Bob
  12. It will be fun to watch this build proceed. I noticed one small boo-boo in the printed plans - the ship is SS Robert E. Peary (not "USS") as it wasn't operated by the US Navy. The Navy did have two different Pearys of its own during WWII, though when this one was built in late '42 it had none.
  13. A nice item to add to the display of a 20th century ship model is a "ship cover", i.e. a poststamped envelope from the actual ship you've modeled. Collecting ship covers (sometimes called naval covers) was apparently an active specialization of stamp collecting, especially in the 1930-70s, and there are many listed on Ebay. Prices can be quite modest - $5-10 is typical - and many, many US ships are represented. The real magic of a cover to me is not so much the decorative image (if there is one) as the postmark - you know that on that date, on your ship, some postal clerk down in the post office made the stamp you see. Of special note to modelers of USS Constitution, I've seen a number of listings of commemorative covers from her tour in the early 1930s. I've attached images of a couple of covers of ships I have modeled. I just lay one or two inside the model case - there's no effort involved at all.
  14. I admit that I haven't looked specifically at this, but books published by the US Naval Insittute in the US are frequently co-published by a different publisher in the UK. In those cases the difference is mostly in the dustjacket. Odds are that that's what you are seeing. (If somebody out there has more specifics on the relationships between those publishers, I'd be interested in knowing.) Bob
  15. I ordered from them a couple of weeks ago with no problem. If I had your problem the first thing I would do is to try a different browser. Firefox and (Google) chrome can be installed on most operating systems.

About us

Modelshipworld - Advancing Ship Modeling through Research

SSL Secured

Your security is important for us so this Website is SSL-Secured

NRG Mailing Address

Nautical Research Guild
237 South Lincoln Street
Westmont IL, 60559-1917

About the NRG

If you enjoy building ship models that are historically accurate as well as beautiful, then The Nautical Research Guild (NRG) is just right for you.

The Guild is a non-profit educational organization whose mission is to “Advance Ship Modeling Through Research”. We provide support to our members in their efforts to raise the quality of their model ships.

The Nautical Research Guild has published our world-renowned quarterly magazine, The Nautical Research Journal, since 1955. The pages of the Journal are full of articles by accomplished ship modelers who show you how they create those exquisite details on their models, and by maritime historians who show you the correct details to build. The Journal is available in both print and digital editions. Go to the NRG web site (www.thenrg.org) to download a complimentary digital copy of the Journal. The NRG also publishes plan sets, books and compilations of back issues of the Journal and the former Ships in Scale and Model Ship Builder magazines.

Our Emblem

Modelshipworld - Advancing Ship Modeling through Research
  • Create New...