Question with Presentation Montrose APA model

Getting really tired of these little rascals.  Made one LCPL.  Hope it's right.  I hear that they put a deckouse on the Higgins boat (same as provided in the Montrose kit) and used it for the Captain's gig, and for boat group control.  My friend was the coxswain of the gig, so he may look at it pretty hard.

Made 22 LCVPs to pick the best 19.

Have two LCM(6) modifications almost done from the thingie in the kit that I think was supposed to represent an LCM(3)  Mine measures out right in length, and I hop the rest is right. 

Ah, yes, the agony of finding new information the directly contradicts what you just "finished" building. I know that feeling well.

I was fortunate to get to spend a bit of time on the American Victory in Tampa with my Dad a few weeks ago. It was hotter than the hinges on you know where that day, but something compelled me to keep prodding him until we were finally standing on the bridge, and he was behind the wheel again as he was when he was a skinny 18-year-old fresh out of merchant marine school. I was looking around, thinking of all the little things I got wrong on the Victory ship model I built for him, until he started reminiscing about some of the good/bad/terrifying times he had at sea ... that helped put everything in perspective.

(For example, did you know that if enough troops travelling below decks spend an entire passage back to the US puking their guts out nonstop, when you finally get home, the longshoremen will complain about the smell before you're even docked?)   

Ah well, I think every model I ever built was finished before I came across some reference that showed a detail I had wrong or omitted. Sometimes it's worth revisiting, most often not. Probably the only way to get a perfect rendition is to be living on board the actual subject for a year or so while you construct the model.

After that you could check yourself into an asylum.

Bondo, on some drawings I notice they show some booms as they would look topped over the hatch, so if you were looking from right abeam of the ship the boom is at some angle to you and looks shorter that it really is.

Gave up on the lettering.  I decided to stick with the letters on the bow ramp and dispense with the numbers on the sides. The MicroScale railroad decals look perfect to me on the bow ramps.

(Also gave a pass on propellers and rudders on the boats, in case you're interested.  Filed that away with "Things to try if I EVER tried another one of these projects again.)  :-)

That rats.

I went back and looked at the drawings and I was wrong, its not a pair of short booms with a long in the middle at the foremast, the draftsman chose to show one short and one long abrubt to each other.

The LCs in the kit deserve replacement in any case.

Still working on the lettering, aren't we?

I just wanted to share with y'all that I've finally come actoss a photo of the cradle for the lighter booms (forward) on one of these APAs - naturally the day after I had glued on the completed, painted boom assembly.

http://www.ussmagoffin.org/passage/spinspect.htm

This is one of a ZILLION photos from the USS Magoffin (APA-199) Veterans' Association at http://www.ussmagoffin.org/indexfast.html.     Not great quality, but a wealth of detail is there for the digging, from all three war periods.  Interestingly, she appears to have gone through the same 1963-64 modifications as Navarro and the other four named in Polmar's  book, but was not listed by Polmar.  Makes me wonder how many others did, too.  Or maybe just the reductions in guns and masts and booms were a separate set of Shipalts.

And on a final note, after I put a ton of work into the 20 little LCVPs, and the LCPL, I was prepared to just paint the LCMs and stick them on t he ship.  I looked at them for a while, did some measurements, and determined that they were WWII-era LCM(3)s, instead of Vietnam-era LCM(6)s, about a half an inch too short, and generally different looking.  Rats.

By the way, if you go back to the first page of this thread, that picture I posted of the foredeck of a civilian VC2 shows the pedestal to the heavy lift boom. It's hard to see because the lower cargo fall block and all the wires to it are in the way.

In 1/375 scale, whatever you do there will be pretty inconspicuous, so I wouldn't obsess over it too much.

Bill, you must have a different plan than the one I have. That 48' and two 36' arrangement doesn't seem familiar. But as I said, the civilian VC2 rig is different than the APA's.

But what you describe doesn't seem to correspond to the photos of the APAs either.

Rick, the pedestal for the base of the heavy lift is probably a short cylinder shape, and the dimensions Bill gave seem reasonable, 2 ft in diameter, 3 ft high. The end of the boom and the pedestal form sort of a ball-and-socket joint.

I just stumbled on this site, more than anybody should need to know about cargo gear, but about 2/3 of the way down the page, Fig. 3-26, is a sketch of a heavy lift rig.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/55-17/ch3.htm

I have a suggestion. Take a piece of plastic rod or sprue, cut it to a scale length of 60ft ( 1.9 in.?) and place it at the base of the mast table to see if it looks longer than the photos indicate.

I can't wait to see this finished. it will be a beauty, and I bet the only model in the world of a Vietnam era APA.

Fred

I put on the 2x and took another look. Very interesting. the 60 foot boom is NOT stepped on the table, which is about 8 feet above the main deck. It is stepped onto a base of it's own that in plan is not well described, and in elevation appears to be about 2 feet thick, and about 3 feet high above the deck, on the centerline, just on the face of the table closest to the bridge, plus there is a big pin connection. There's a very fuzzy note that reads "50 ton 60 foot boom stowed" at each of these two booms, which are on the masts immediately fore/aft of the superstructure and face each inward over the 3 and 4 holds.

I'm too tired to look at photos just now, but the drawing seems to show that there are a pair of lines in blocks from the mast to the end of the boom, perhaps from each end of the "hammerhead" mast head, in addition to the lifting rig. 

Tomorrow I'll take these in to work, they're kind of like a twinbed sheet, and scan the mast arrangements and have them available to those who would like them, over the weekend.

Bill

onyxman wrote:

It's possible that when they wanted to use the two light booms on the forward end of the aft mast, they unshipped the standing rigging that would be in the way. For example, on Liberty ships there is a stay running from the top of the forward mast to the deck just aft of #1 hatch. This gets in the way of cargo ops at #1, so I have read that they often kept this stay unshipped and tied out of the way, unless they needed the heavy lift boom. These are big ole wires and turnbuckles, a lot of work to attach and dettach. So they could have decided to just leave them attached, and get rid of the light booms instead.

The foremost mast has one 48 foot boom and two 36 foot booms, all facing forward. the short booms are rigged as stays (vangs?) to the one in the center; over the No. 1 hatch.

The mast in front of the midships structure has the same arrangement facing forward; over the No. 2 hatch.

The same arrangement is on the stern facing side of that mast, PLUS a single 60 foot boom that is double reaved (rove?) in the center, all over the No. 3 hatch. The plan does not explain how this lays out.

The superstructure follows fore and aft with the 48 plus 36 times two, and the rear mast is the same in reverse as the mast fore of the structure.

Seen in elevation, the rigging of booms on the masts closest to the superstructure seems to be:

60 foot without guys in the center, a 48 foot boom on either side, with a 36 foot boom guyed to its block.

I know this is all amateurish, but again I cannot recommend these drawings enough!(thank you Fred).

Bill

jtilley wrote:

I wonder how the Revell designers decided just where to slice off those hulls.  If I remember right, this one's cut off in such a way that a little of the rudder is visible - but none of the screw.  Maybe a completely empty ship would float at that waterine, but certainly not one that was in any sort of operational condition. Like I said earlier, modelers in the 1950s were a pretty naive bunch.

We have agreed she's sitting on her shafts, per Revell. So we need a big 10 foot blade (s) showing- and here gentlemen is a nice thread- real propellers.

I went to see a movie, when I was a kid, with the parents. I have no idea what it was, but it makes me think of B Traven. It was a russian freighter I think, and in the end the hero dives off the stern and makes as if to swim into the screw, which is this big windmill like thing, where the cooks wife, who is his secret lover, dives in after him and holds him back, while, flop...flop...flop...

Anyone remember that one?

No? Good, I'm sure.

But the prop would be a nice detail. What is the shaft speed? Sorry, I digress.

Here is a thought. Perhaps Revell had planned to make a motorized series of ships, like Lindberg. They might have tooled a shaft-up hull, thinking that a companion motorized kit would have the lower hull plus shafts, props etc.

It's possible that when they wanted to use the two light booms on the forward end of the aft mast, they unshipped the standing rigging that would be in the way.

For example, on Liberty ships there is a stay running from the top of the forward mast to the deck just aft of #1 hatch. This gets in the way of cargo ops at #1, so I have read that they often kept this stay unshipped and tied out of the way, unless they needed the heavy lift boom.

These are big ole wires and turnbuckles, a lot of work to attach and dettach. So they could have decided to just leave them attached, and get rid of the light booms instead. 

I looked at that drawing. Could it be 60 ft? That seems reasonable if you compare it to the 36' landing craft on the drawing. However, in the pictures it looks a lot shorter than the other booms  even if you take into account that it's stepped lower down. Maybe they shortened it at some point.

I'm afraid all this speculation on my part is making your head ache.

Fred

Rick,

Speaking only for myself, there is no such thing as too many words on these forums.

Ever notice how the BB fans can talk endlessly on the reletive merits battlecruiser vs battleship vs heavy cruiser etc? We are just doing the same thing with cargo booms.

Now, if it makes you feel better about snipping off those two light booms, I think I see a reason they did it. If that heavy lift boom was added on the centerline back there, they probably needed extra bracing for that mast, and it would have to go more or less in a forward direction to counteract a 30-plus ton load on that boom. In that picture of the Talledega, you can see that one of those white colored stays leads forward somewhat (presumably likewise on the starboard side). Well, those extra stays/shrouds, whatever you want to call them, look like they would interfere with the two light booms that used to serve that #4? hatch. So they probably cut them off. That hatch is still served by the two kingposts aft of the superstructure. Make sense?

Maybe you can use one of those superfluous booms to make the heavy lift?

Fred 

Thanks, I've been wrestling with those photos.  I believe those photose are from the late 40's - 50's.  At any rate, the 5" gun on the fantail is the giveaway that it is prior to the FRAM upgrade that I am working with.  The vent posts on the fo'sc'sle were cut down on many of the ships in 1960-ish, too, but I have cast my decisions in stone for them.  Fred has caught me in time on  the question about number and location of booms over the after hatch - I haven't finalized that yet.

I have some drawings here : http://www.rpadden.com/apablueprint/blueprint.htm, but they are WWII vintage, and don't really address my specific questions.

In trying to figure out the mounting of the booms on the forward mast table, I finally realized the rationale for the really funky figure-8 style railings on that mast table.  They needed to allow the swing of the booms and still keep people on the deck.  I had five or six photos showing the railings on the fwd mast table and didn't understand that railing shape for a long time.

 These photos that you guys have been showing me have been printed and next to my workbench for several months, but until you beat me over the head with it, I never noticed that there was a fifth (heavy) boom on the centerline over the after hatch.   It shows in lots of photos, and it's in that drawing, but since it's not in the Montrose kit, it just never clicked for me.  Good thing  I hadn't finalized that area yet.  

However, I do see what Fred was pointing out about it appearing that photos showing the absence of two of the lighter booms on the forward side of the aft mast table, and I just can't cope with that.  I still don't know what to do.  Omitting them would be a really big leap, but I do think the navsource 1963 Navarro photo gives pretty clear evidence, and I guess I'm also seeing it on the other FRAM ships - Okanagan, Montrose, Bexar and Pickaway, after 1963.  Guess I'll snip those booms off.

 Sorry for all the words, but, again, I really appreciate the opportunity to use you all as a sounding board for my thoughts on this project, and I sincerely hope to have the thing done by this time next week.  :-)

Rick 

here are some pretty good shots.

http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~txnavarr/name_sakes/uss_navarro/photographs.htm

It's Talledega APA-208. Also, if you look at the Renville, there is a good shot of the forward boom down in a cradle.

I hope I'm not complicating the issue if there were lot's of modifications that don't apply to the Navarro.

Fred

One thing I noticed in that series of pictures on the navsource site. In the first one, the forward set of vents/kingposts are cut down as your model shows. Look on the after mast. It looks like they have also removed two of the booms. This also seems to show on that last color picture I linked to.

This one:

http://www.navsource.org/archives/10/03/100320806.jpg

Could it be that at some later time in the ship's service they removed those two booms, the forwardmost ones at the after mast, and added that single heavy lift boom over the last hatch?

Progress.  Again, I appreciate everybody's musings on and around the subject.

There are a couple of photos of Navarro on Navsource here: http://www.navsource.org/archives/10/03/03215.htm

that show what I'm trying to accomplish.  Quite a bit of boot topping shows in the photo at the pier - I hope that is not red bottom paint also showing, because I'm not doing that.

Here are some Work in Progress photos - my modeling is better than my photography.   The masts and booms are just dry-fitted in place.

Those plans are interesting. I have the capacity plan for the Z-EC2-S-C5 Liberty Airplane Transport. It includes a neat Deadweight Scale from which one can see what weight corresponds to various drafts, and how many tons will immerse the ship 1 inch 'TPI'. ( a Sherman tank will set her down less than an inch )

Also interesting, from Bondoman's link:

"This ship carried approximately as much as a heavy U.S. railway freight train (7000 tons), using about the same horsepower, but the freight train will move at twice the speed of the ship on the level, or more, up to about 48 knots. The train will require a crew of three at the present time, or nine considering 24-hour operation, while the Victory ship had a crew of 54. There are no tracks in the sea, nor water on land, but the comparison is interesting. Ships today seem to carry most of their cargo in containers on deck, which must affect their stability; it would be nice to know how this is managed."

Of course about a third of the ship's crew is the Stewards Department, cooks, messmen etc. Train crews presumably go home and eat. Sailors can not. Another third of the crew are Engineers. A train crew doesn't have to repair or maintain their equipment. Besides, a modern containership has a crew more like 20.

As for the stability of container ships, it's managed in the same way as stability has always been. Those containers look like they would make the ship top heavy, but there is a lot of empty space within each container, even besides the many completely empty containers they need to carry. Those stacks of containers also extend below deck all the way to the doublebottom, not just on deck. 

I agree with your math. I was figuring that the deck was level with the side of the hull, as on the tanker, but this explains why the lugs I mentioned before are set down inside the hull- there is a solid bulwark. So I get 30.25 feetof freeboard PLUS bulwark, at midships. I can only guess/scale the height from the VC2 drawing (Oregon Shipbuilding) because there isn't the beautiful table of dimensions that came on the T2 drawing (Marinship). But it looks to be about 40'. So 12' of "as-modeled" draft works for me.

Heres a neat little ref. you probably have:

http://mysite.du.edu/~jcalvert/tech/fluids/cargo.htm

There the height is listed at 38'. Which bumps up Revell's draft just a little.

Cutting 1/4" off the bottom would increase the draft by 8'. It also looks about right when taped on the hull, compared to the pictures I've glanced at, which all look light with a fair amount of bottom paint showing.

When I get around to the build, after T2, I plan to leave a minimum of freeboard, on both, in the water.

I can't recommend these drawings enough. They're different- the T2 is highly detailed with lots of dimensions, while the VC2 isn't so much but it has a long and fascinating table of revisions described in the usual place on a drawing, down the right side. And good basic boom rigging diagrams.

Listen to me, a wingnut. I'll hush up now.