Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Our Ned

Members
  • Content Count

    48
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

76 Good

About Our Ned

  • Rank
    Newbie

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Earth

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. The other end of a ship could get quite wet, too. This is the quarterdeck of a different Ark Royal in the Moray Firth in September 1978, in the tail end of a hurricane.
  2. Similar jibs were fitted in the cruiser London, Queen Elizabeth (but not Valiant) and the catapult training ship Pegasus (https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205145509) - in Pegasus, the hatch to the hold, and the catapult, were quite close to the base of the crane.
  3. At least two other Captains class ships wore a similar scheme to that in the first post - photos of each appear in the IWM collection - Curzon (Photo Ref A26373) and Fitzroy (FL13142) - although neither shows the lighter-coloured funnel and Curzon had light-coloured pendant numbers.
  4. Given that Ekins was delivered in the camouflage pattern and colours applied in the US yards before delivery to the RN in late 1943 (https://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/images/hmsekinsmpl2874.jpghttp://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=45163 - scroll down to first Ekins photo), and the scheme shown in OP's photo is much later - apparently late 1944 (https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205157999) - I'm not convinced that she woulod have been repainted to a USN scheme. That said, I've no idea what scheme WAS painted up!
  5. "Cast" in order of appearance: Saratoga, US destroyers (Dunlap, Fanning and Cummings - not sure which order), Quilliam, Suffolk, Gambia, Renown, Illustrious, London, Gambia, "Q", "R" and "N" class destroyers (including Napier), Queen Elizabeth, Valiant, Richelieu, Ceylon, Tromp, Birmingham.
  6. The small parts represent the directors for the multiple 2-pounder pompom mountings, fitted with the aerials Type 282 RDF (later called "radar"). Type 285 was fitted to her HA.DCTs (two above the bridge, two on the after superstructure), with six Yagi arrays, rather than the two fitted for Type 282.
  7. Try this: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1e/SeaCat_on_the_HMNZS_Wellington%2C_1987.JPEG/1280px-SeaCat_on_the_HMNZS_Wellington%2C_1987.JPEG?1588872109536
  8. According to Page 51 of the same book, "... the 5th [Destroyer Flotilla] carried no bands." Kipling was part of that flotilla until it was disbanded (just after her return to Alexandria as depicted in the photograph).
  9. There does seem to be a slight dent there! The other photo shows the starboard side of the aircraft, standing on the flight deck just abaft the starboard seaplane crane.
  10. The photos posted by dhogue appeared in the second issue of the quarterly publication "Warship" published in 1977. They form part of an article entitled "HMS Ark Royal Part 1: Design" by JD Brown (as far as I know, Part 2: Operational Career never appeared). The photos aren't credited, but there is another from what seems to be the same series on the back cover of the first issue, where the caption states that it was taken in Portsmouth in March 1940, with reference "CPL. W/1/016-017" (presumably Conway Photographic Library). No serial is visible on the aircraft, but the code E8F was allocated to the 2nd Battle Squadron, specifically to HMS Resolution; she was allocated Swordfish E4222 in this period.
  11. Although Robert has said he plans to make a model of Mutine later in the war, beware that the photo he originally posted is reversed (and censored to remove the pendant number). The IWM has this photo (reference A15851) as well as the correct uncensored version (Reference FL 16588).
  12. robgizlu wrote "Royal Navy HACS MkIV GB with Tyoe 285 Radar x4 - (I'm not certain Cornwall had this ..." Cornwall was fitted with two HACS Mk I in her mid-1930s modernisation; I've seen no reference to her being fitted with any more modern system. Similarly, I haven't seen anything saying she was ever fitted with AR RDF (radar) Type 285. The well-known photo of the ship sinking appears to show a smooth top surface to the port HA.DCT (ie no RDF aerial), although that is surprising since she was under air attack, so the cover should have been open!
  13. IBG's 1/700 "HMS Hotspur 1941" has arrived on my workbench. Similar in concept and design to IBG's Garland, Ithuriel and Glowworm, it is therefore of generally good quality, but unfortunately suffers from poor research in one significant area. The kit shares many components with the Glowworm kit, including the foc's'le deck (part J4) and "B" gundeck (Part I1), both of which have the circular recesses below the 4.7" gun mounting positions which were needed for the guns in the"E", "F" and "G" classes to elevate to the full 40⁰. Similarly, the main deck (Part E8) and "X" gundeck (Part E5) also have these recesses. However, the "H" class had a later mark of gun, which did not need this feature, and so had a continuous deck below each gun mounting. Thus either the deck recesses should be filled and sanded smooth, or a ship of an earlier class should be modelled. (Note that the "E" and "F" classes were 6 feet longer overall than the "H" class - the "G"s were the same length as the "H"s). A couple of lesser snags are also present; As with the Glowworm kit, the TSDS winches are missing, and depth charge reload racks (Parts J5, PE17, PE18) are supplied instead. The galley funnel, extending from the crew's galley (Part A3) diagonally across the starboard side of the forefunnel and up its after face, is not provided Apart from these glitches, a nice kit (although I have yet to start assembly).
  14. In addition to the problem of the port-side blind spot, I suspect the flying bridge was intended to make it easier to keep the ship on the planned track in confined waters. The inboard end was on the ship's centreline, thus the jackstaff (when rigged) and the stem would be directly ahead of the compass repeat, and it would be easy to see whether the intended headmark was actually directly ahead of the ship, and any planned transit (if there was one) would be easier to follow. The "angle-off" of the jackstaff or stem when seen from the island could lead to problems in determining the true course of the ship when conning her from there. The USN, in more recent years, has attempted to deal with a related problem by the installation of the so-called "Belknap Pole" in the flightdeck catwalk directly ahead of the bridge in their carriers (after the incident where USS JOHN F KENNEDY collided with USS BELKNAP). See, for example, https://bremolympicnlus.wordpress.com/2013/03/19/uss-ronald-reagan-homeward-bound/. It definitely was nothing to do with aviation! Would anyone want to be on the end of such a platform when aircraft were landing on?
  15. The church pennant over the "interrogative" flag was alledgedly flown by a "navigationally challenged" US destroyer - when asked the meaning of the flag hoist, she is said to have replied "God, where am I?" - don't you just love apocryphal stories!
×
×
  • Create New...