RofG Reissue of USS / USCGC Burton Island Kit

Gold Medal Models makes a dedicated set of photo-etched parts for the Revell Wind-class icebreakers and Treasury-class Coast Guard cutters:  http://www.goldmm.com/ships/gms3uscg.htm .  Not cheap, but it certainly looks like high-quality merchandise.

One little detail about which I'm curious.  The original design for this icebreaker class called for a big propeller at the bow, which was supposed to help clear chunks of ice away from the ship's path.  In practice the idea didn't work; I'm not sure how many members of the class ever got the bow screws fitted, but all were removed pretty quickly.  I have a vague recollection that the initial release of the Revell kit (under the name Eastwind, in 1957) may have had the bow screw.  (I know the subsequent issues, under the names Eastwind and Burton Island, didn't.)  This may be one more product of a senile memory; I'd be interested to hear from anybody who knows for sure one way or the other.

I remember reading, in a British magazine, a review of a reissue of the kit in (I think) the seventies.  The reviewer - a widely respected and influential modeler - stated flatly that the full hull made the model look "ridiculous," and that all modern warship models ought to be cut at the waterline - period.  (He did allow that it was permissible for the huge "museum models" to have full hulls.  What a relief.)  My own opinion is that (a) the "full-hull vs. waterline" decision is entirely a matter for the individual modeler to decide; and (b) the odd shape of an icebreaker's underwater hull is one of the things that make her an icebreaker - and a characteristic that's certainly worth modeling. 

I'm not too familiar with this ship, but the bow props in modern icebreakers function , I believe, to cavitate under the ice, lowering the pressure, and allow the ships bow to ride over and then bear down on the flow.

Sounds like an interesting kit.  I agree with jtilley, a waterlined icebreaker would look just like an odd tugboat.  On the other hand, this subject begs to be put onto an icy base.

I'm always glad to see a subject that doesn't have a history of sinking or exploding in some spectacular and tragic way.  :)

Fred

 I've viewed a Revell Eastwind built with the Gold Medal photo etch, the effect was impressive and takes the model to the "next level". When comparing the Revell Burton Island/Eastwind detail, it was head and shoulders above it's contemporaries(1950's) and with a little work holds up well in spite of it's age. From what I've been able to research the bow propeller sounded good on paper but was prone to ice damage in actual practice. It was removed from the class soon after the Eastwind's wartime experience. The Coast Guard's ice breaker Mackinaw, built for the Great Lakes(based on a modified Wind Class hull), also employed a "bow screw" and retained it throughout its career on the Lakes.

I looked at my 1980's Burton Island re-issue and no bow prop is indicated in the instructions, I'm guessing that it didn't appear on the original offering by Revell. The USCG museum in Seattle has a large builders' model of a WWII Wind Class breaker and the bow prop is present on the model. Speaking of which...the Eastwind was one of the most heavily armed warships of WWII(for it's size 269 feet). Four 5" guns, three quad 40's, six 20mm, four k guns with two depth charge racks...the Eastwind made the first US naval capture of a Nazi ship in the war after a very brief gun battle...it's a shame resin manufactuers haven't produced one in 1:350. Still they will produce a resin model of every other navy's garbage scow first, neglecting a serious  study of a unique class of US warships, go figure.    

As for Professor Tilley's observation on full hull vs waterline, I guess it is the builders perogative as how to build their "creation". I've seen modelers construct a full hull, yet mount it on a sheet of lexan in a "marine setting", giving the viewer a complete picture of the vessel above and below the waterline...    

The posts from onyxman, bondoman, and thunder1 are consistent with my understanding of how the "bow screw" worked - or didn't work.  My recollection about the inclusion of it in the Revell kit is based on one my older brother built when the kit was new - i.e., in or around 1957, when I was seven years old.  I built it myself several times in reissued form; none of those kits had the bow screw.  It sticks in my memory that the original version did - but I may well be mistaken about that.

Thunder1's listing of the class's armament left out one "weapon."  The original design managed to cram in the storage and hoisting gear for an aircraft - originally a Grumman Duck.  There was no catapult; the plane took off from and landed on the water.  (The Treasury-class cutters originally were similarly equipped - with no guns on the afterdecks.)  Sometime after WWII the Wind-class ships had their airplanes replaced with helicopters - like the nifty little one in the Revell kit.  (I guess the kit represents the ship as she appeared in the fifties.)

I'll second the motion that manufacturers pay more attention to ships like this - and I'll broaden it to include U.S. Coast Guard vessels in general.   

Professor

You are correct concerning the "Duck", after I posted my initial comments I thought to myself, "you forgot to include the dang plane!" But I did forget another weapon system, the HEDGEHOG located on the 02 deck. Resin ship manufacturers, when will you make this old Coastie's day and produce the Eastwind in all it's WWII glory? Even if the builder doesn't normally model USCG subjects(white, not enough cool guns), the Wind class ice breakers sported gray paint, a lot of armament and even a seaplane, whats not to like? These ships served for almost 50 years in USCG, US Navy, and Russian service, in many configurations, I would think it would appeal to a wide variety of ship modelers. Ok I'll get off my soap box, I get frustrated that the different companies will continually manufacture a model of a ship/boat that had a short career and exploits didn't match up to their "legend" status.(American PT boats come to mind).   

 

 

thunder1 wrote:

The USCG museum in Seattle has a large builders' model of a WWII Wind Class breaker and the bow prop is present on the model.

 The Wind class icebreaker model at the USCG Museum in Seattle is one of those fabulous Gibbs and Cox models-- it was one of my favorites there.  (I was stationed in Seattle for six years- I used to visit the museum regularly.)

IIRC, only one of the Secretary class cutters carried a Grumman Duck, and only for a relatively short time before the US entered the war.....

Those of us who can still (barely) handle 1/700 can rejoice -http://home.earthlink.net/~loosecannonproductions/Kit18.html. Hugh has the Eastwind in all her firepower-packing WW II glory, complete with a Duck! I think that is going to be my next ship, as soon as I *mumbles* finish my Haskell APA ...

I did some digging into the story of the Treasury-class cutters some years ago, when I was working on line drawings of three of them for the CG Historian's Office.  Unless I'm much mistaken, all of them were originally equipped to handle aircraft.  (That was considered an important feature; one of the principal duties of the class was to be the patrolling of ocean areas far from land, where the new-fangled civilian airliners were flying.  The high-endurance cutters were supposed to be available to locate, and rescue survivors from, downed airliners.)  I know the Taney (the first one I drew - in her as-built configuration) operated a Duck, and several of the others operated SOC Seagulls.  There aren't many photos of them with the aircraft on board because, as thunder1 noted, the aircraft gear was removed shortly before WWII started; the space occupied by the aircraft was utilized for additional guns and depth charge gear.  (The aircraft gear actually didn't amount to much.  I remember one photo of the Taney's afterdeck, from the vantage point of the aft end of the superstructure.  The plane itself wasn't there; the only evidence of its existence was a remarkably small and simple cart, on which it sat when it wasn't flying or in the water.  A simple crane, mounted on the aft end of the superstructure, did the work of hoisting the plane into and out of the water.)

Robert Scheina's book on WWII Coast Guard vessels (my copy of which is out of reach at the moment) spells all this out in as much detail as the available documentation allows.  As I remember, he was able to find the serial numbers of most - but not all - of the aircraft that were assigned to the Treasury-class ships. 

They were handsome, important little vessels - nice model subjects that, unfortunately, haven't gotten much attention from the kit manufacturers.  One thing that's always impressed me about them is their versatility; another is their ability to look good in a variety of configurations.  I admit that they looked something less than beautiful when fitted out as amphibious force flagships (with lengthened superstructures).  Otherwise, whether equipped as ocean station patrol vessels, convoy escorts, or peacetime weather ships, they always managed to look like they'd been designed that way.

I seem to recall that, years ago, FSM ran an article about a conversion of the old Revell kit to early WWII convoy escort configuration.  One of my long-term ambitions (I have dozens of them, a few of which may actually happen some day)  is a conversion of the same kit to "as-built" configuration, complete with airplane. 

Pictures suggest that the decks at least after the war were natural wood; very beautiful in fact.

A Seagull/Duck takes almost no beaching equipment, just a big V block. Of course a Duck is an amphibian but I would guess didn't sit on it's (webbed) feet onboard a ship. Seagulls used a recovery mat on the larger armed ships from which they served, allowing recovery while underway. I don't suppose the USCG did that. The Navy drained the fuel from it's scouts after recovery, cleaned them up and put them away, plus they had spare engines, wings etc. in storage to sustain operations. I'd guess that would not be possible on a smaller ship of this size.

On a CA cruiser there would be upwards of 100 sailors and aviators involved in the operation of up to four scout planes, plus gun crews for the catapult etc.

No small endeavour.

 Hey carmike -- I have that ship too. I was always fond of the older REVELL offerings of vessels important to this country. The TANEY was the only model ship I ever put in a diorama.I just thought this fine vessel,in a storm, was as I described her (considering the raft full of men off her quarter in that storm) an angel when needed. The Icebreakers, I thought were neat either as the Eastwind or the BURTON ISLAND. This was the kind of kit that gets your interest, because she was definitely different. On the same note I do wish they would re - release ALL the early ships one more time. You know,clean up the molds and bring back the TANEY (USCG)  And the USS PINE ISLAND, the CURRITUCK( I think these two were the same)The LONG BEACH ,You know, All those ships we grew up on.I would certainly make a bee-line to my L.H.S. for a chance to build all those ships again. The scale and such is unimportant, I,ve built enough in forty years to fix (or not) the flaws.    tankerbuilder

 

Thanks, everyone for the information.

I'm going to order the GMM PE this afternoon.  It's a great looking set and "drooping" rotor blades on the H2 Sikorsky will go a long way to improving the look of the build.

I've done some additional research in the last week and there is quite a bit of information on the web about this class of icebreakers - one tidbit from the Coast Guard's site is that the removal of the bow propeller was due to shaft fractures rather than problems with the propeller itself.  I've decided to build the kit with a bow propeller, it makes an interesting model a bit more interesting.

My preliminary examination of the kit has uncovered no major problems with fit, all in all, it looks like the original mold was a pretty good effort on Revell's part and that RofG's vendor did an equally good job in re-producing the kit.

Although 1:350 seems to have become the de-facto standard for ship models these days, I wouldn't mind seeing more of the older 1:256 (or thereabouts) kits re-issued, the larger scale seems to be easier to work with and has a lot of potential for adding additional detail without eye-strain (I've probably become spoiled after kitbashing "O" scale (1:48) buildings for my train layout).

Will post some pictures as soon as the build gets underway.

Thanks again.

 

 Hello jtilley!! This answer is late in coming. The first two of these ships that I did ,had the bow prop. It didn,t say in the instructions where to put it though!I thought WOW! they sent me an extra part! The first of thousands of car, armor, plane, and ship parts I,ve managed to acquire over many,many years. I still have parts from the first issue of the U.S.S.FORREST SHERMAN! I just had to assure you that you,re not having a memory glitch!      tankerbuilder

Great info in here, thanks all for sharing. Nice to see an icebreaker out there, I have SOYA in the stash, maybe a GB idea for the future "Ice GB"....

 

All this talk about icebreakers has got me drooling over the possibilities with my Loose Cannon Productions Eastwind kit. I usually take a break between ships and do an airplane, and after finally finishing my APA diorama Lord knows I need the break, but still, having never modeled ice before ...

Besides, there's that cool Measure 16 camo scheme of Thayer Blue and White! 

 

I just dug out my model of the Eastwind that I built in 1957 (even still has the helicopter!) and

it has no bow propeller, just a hooked ram-looking protuberance. 

Wot wrote: 

I just dug out my model of the Eastwind that I built in 1957 (even still has the helicopter!) and

it has no bow propeller, just a hooked ram-looking protuberance. 

 

Very interesting!  According to Dr. Graham's book, 1957 was the year of the kit's initial released.

I suppose it's conceivable that the bow screw was included in the very first production run of the kit, and that a second run with no bow screw was put on the market by the end of 1957.  It's also possible - and, I think, considerably more likely - that my poor senile old memory is playing another trick on me, and the bow screw was never there in the first place.

In any case, it's a decent kit of an historically significant vessel - and it's good that it's back on the market.