The PT Boat Forum
http://www.ptboatforum.com/cgi-bin/MB2/netboard.cgi

ť Forum Category: PT Boats of WWII
http://www.ptboatforum.com/cgi-bin/MB2/netboard.cgi?cid=101&fct=showf

ť Forum Name: PT Boats - General
http://www.ptboatforum.com/cgi-bin/MB2/netboard.cgi?fct=gotoforum&cid=101&fid=102

ť Topic: PT 109 Model
http://www.ptboatforum.com/cgi-bin/MB2/netboardr.cgi?cid=101&fid=102&tid=1335

PT 109 Model

This wonderful 1/72 scale PT 109 model has been graciously donated to my Exhibit by Mr. Jerry Fraske. Fraske has done many models and his work is second to none. I will be proud to display this in all of my future Exhibits. I just love the water

Frank

[image]http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p249/ptboats/FrankAndruss/Jerry_Fraske_PT-109_Model-01.jpg[/image]

[image]http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p249/ptboats/FrankAndruss/Jerry_Fraske_PT-109_Model-02.jpg[/image]

[image]http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p249/ptboats/FrankAndruss/Jerry_Fraske_PT-109_Model-03.jpg[/image]

[image]http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p249/ptboats/FrankAndruss/Jerry_Fraske_PT-109_Model-04.jpg[/image]

Posted By: Frank J Andruss Sr | Posted on: May 9, 2009 - 3:36pm
Total Posts: 3497 | Joined: Oct 9, 2006 - 6:09am

Frank;
Nice diorama, It reminds me of one I have seen online of PT 117 launching a MK 18 Torpedo.
Enjoy!
Ted

Posted By: TED WALTHER | Posted on: May 9, 2009 - 5:50pm
Total Posts: 3059 | Joined: Oct 16, 2006 - 7:42am

Nice OOB job Frank.

Take a close look at the face of the officer figure - use a magnifying glass - it is JFK ... I'm amazed at how Revell did that ...

Garth

Posted By: TGConnelly | Posted on: May 10, 2009 - 6:30am
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered

Now that you mention that Garth, I decided to look closer at the ones I have at the house. I never really noticed it before, but you are correct. Now there's food for thought. A 1/35th scale PT 109 Crew made from the real men's photo's. Even larger scale just to have them made up for those who love to paint figures...................

Posted By: Frank J Andruss Sr | Posted on: May 10, 2009 - 2:32pm
Total Posts: 3497 | Joined: Oct 9, 2006 - 6:09am

Nice...the water base does look great.

I have a few (about half a dozen) nits to pick with it, but overall, very nice.

Posted By: Drew Cook | Posted on: May 10, 2009 - 2:42pm
Total Posts: 1306 | Joined: Oct 19, 2006 - 10:44am

Well ...

I've got to tell you ...

I've never noticed the facial features of that figure until I saw that series of videos about that Japanese modeler who built that PT-109. They had a segment of that video that zeroed in on that figure's face and I saw the face and you can also make out the aviator's sunglasses that he was wearing too. Totally amazing.

Wayne Traxel also told me that the figure was not included in the PT-190 "Jack'O'Diamonds" kit but was included in the PT-167 kit as her skipper.

After I saw those videos - I looked at the PT-171 model that Alex Johnson rebuilt and looked at the figure that Al LeFleche did ... low and behold ..... I saw everything that was shown in the videos and said WOW.

Garth

Posted By: TGConnelly | Posted on: May 10, 2009 - 2:57pm
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered

What are yonder nits Drew?

Nice...the water base does look great.

I have a few (about half a dozen) nits to pick with it, but overall, very nice.

Posted By: TGConnelly | Posted on: May 10, 2009 - 2:59pm
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered

Guys;
You never noticed it was JFK's face on the figure??? I thought you all knew about it so I never mentioned it, I have known this since I was 12 or 13.
Oh well, I always did enjoy painting figures, thats probably why I noticed.
take care,
TED

Posted By: TED WALTHER | Posted on: May 10, 2009 - 3:15pm
Total Posts: 3059 | Joined: Oct 16, 2006 - 7:42am

Nope, not me ... although I never, until recently after I met Al LeFleche had figures put onto any of my models - so I never looked at them.

Posted By: TGConnelly | Posted on: May 10, 2009 - 3:41pm
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered

Ted, like Garth I never put figures onto any of the boats I had made for the Exhibit. Even as a young kid, I just tossed aside those figures into my play box and used them later for playing around. Painting figures takes a steady hand and a talent (which I don't have) so I never paid much attention to the figures. I think if I could find anyone to do first class figures, I would have them painted up for my 1/35 boat, but off the top of my head I do not know anyone that is a real talent when it comes to figures...........

Posted By: Frank J Andruss Sr | Posted on: May 10, 2009 - 4:12pm
Total Posts: 3497 | Joined: Oct 9, 2006 - 6:09am

Frank,

Al LeFleche or Gary Barr (both of IPMS WINGS'N'WHEELS) are Masters at figures ..............

Garth

Posted By: TGConnelly | Posted on: May 11, 2009 - 12:49pm
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered

Garth,

My main nits are as follows:

-- 2"x 8" planks under bow 37mm too large (out of scale).
-- searchlight pole (debatable - I don't think the 109's was up) outboard of port cockpit bulkhead, should be inboard, along joint of bulkhead & rear cockpit armor step.
-- canvas splash shield on port twin-.50 turret missing.
-- forward depth charges/cradles missing.
-- bow light should be removed from bullnose.
-- heating unit should be removed.
-- radio antenna too thin.
-- life ring behind starboard twin-.50 turret should probably be on rear dayroom cabin bulkhead (debatable).
-- molded ledges above dayroom ports should be trimmed way down.
-- A-frame mast is present w/flag -- shouldn't have a mast, and flag should be flown on stern flagstaff.
-- life raft should be removed (debatable).
-- kit windshield should have been left unaltered to represent painted-over plexiglass.

As I said, though, overall the model looks really good and there's lots to like, particularly the water base and the illusion of the boat at speed. The paint job is good, the figures look good (where'd he get that figure with the binoculars? I want one for my Revell 1/72nd 109!), the boat numbers and their positioning are good, the detail on the twin-.50's (opened muzzles, ammo belts) is good, sidelights and side ports on the charthouse are good...

-- Drew

Posted By: Drew Cook | Posted on: May 11, 2009 - 7:20pm
Total Posts: 1306 | Joined: Oct 19, 2006 - 10:44am

Ahoy there!

Here is a link to a video on YouTube that shows how to make a 1/72 scale Revell PT-109 boat model look like it is moving at speed iincluding the distinctive "Rooster Tail".

LInk to Part 6 of 6 parts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQVp_ibAi5w

Here are 3 screen captures of the finished diorama:

[image]http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p249/ptboats/PeterTareBuilder/1-72ScaleRevellPT-1091.jpg[/image]

[image]http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p249/ptboats/PeterTareBuilder/1-72ScaleRevellPT-1092.jpg[/image]

[image]http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p249/ptboats/PeterTareBuilder/1-72ScaleRevellPT-1093.jpg[/image]

And here is an image of JFK in the model's cockpit:

[image]http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p249/ptboats/PeterTareBuilder/1-72ScaleRevellJFKFigureOnPT-109.jpg[/image]

Cheers from Peter

"Give me a faster PT boat for I'd like to get out of harm's way!"

Posted By: PeterTareBuilder | Posted on: May 11, 2009 - 11:36pm
Total Posts: 494 | Joined: Jun 24, 2008 - 5:59pm

Peter Tare Builder,

Thanks for posting the tutorial. The screen capture of the JFK figure should put to rest any doubt about the identity of that particular figure in the Revell PT 109 kit.

I've always known the figure was JFK, as the head sculpt -- short-billed Army/Marine Corps fatigue cap & sunglasses -- is taken straight from the famous JFK-in-the-109-cockpit photos.

Maybe it's my German (traditionally known as skilled figurine sculptors/painters/toymakers) heritage, but I always loved the figures in my model builds and paid a lot of attention to them. I've always thought the Revell PT 109 kit could use about seven or eight more crew figures. If I ever build one again, mine will be fully crewed.

Posted By: Drew Cook | Posted on: May 12, 2009 - 4:56am
Total Posts: 1306 | Joined: Oct 19, 2006 - 10:44am

Drew,

I will agree with you on the planks for the 37, ... and there should be more ropes lashing it to the deck, or else it'd go overboard.

The searchlight SHOULD be on the inboard side, yes.

Well, the kit does not include the shield for the turret; he COULD have used tissue soaked in white glue and then, painted to depict that. Alex Johnson used tissue on my 171. But, I don't think Mr. Fraske is a dedicated ship modeler - so he wouldn't know about PTs having that there.

The heater unit - I'll agree also.

The mast? We ALL know my take on that.

The radio attenna is too thin? Looks OK to me ...

The windshield, agree - HOWEVER - he's not a dedicated ship modeler, so I'd cut him slack on that.

Garth

Garth,

My main nits are as follows:

-- 2"x 8" planks under bow 37mm too large (out of scale).
-- searchlight pole (debatable - I don't think the 109's was up) outboard of port cockpit bulkhead, should be inboard, along joint of bulkhead & rear cockpit armor step.
-- canvas splash shield on port twin-.50 turret missing.
-- bow light should be removed from bullnose.
-- heating unit should be removed.
-- radio antenna too thin.
-- life ring behind starboard twin-.50 turret should probably be on rear dayroom cabin bulkhead (debatable).
-- molded ledges above dayroom ports should be trimmed way down.
-- A-frame mast is present w/flag -- shouldn't have a mast, and flag should be flown on stern flagstaff.
-- life raft should be removed (debatable).
-- kit windshield should have been left unaltered to represent painted-over plexiglass.

As I said, though, overall the model looks really good and there's lots to like, particularly the water base and the illusion of the boat at speed. The paint job is good, the figures look good (where'd he get that figure with the binoculars? I want one for my Revell 1/72nd 109!), the boat numbers and their positioning are good, the detail on the twin-.50's (opened muzzles, ammo belts) is good, sidelights and side ports on the charthouse are good...

-- Drew

Posted By: TGConnelly | Posted on: May 12, 2009 - 7:00am
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered

Come on guys, I did not post the picture so that you could find all these things wrong with it. If you want to contact me off-line about it, then fine. If I feel I want to make any changes to the boat, then I will have it done.

Posted By: Frank J Andruss Sr | Posted on: May 12, 2009 - 11:38am
Total Posts: 3497 | Joined: Oct 9, 2006 - 6:09am

I always thought the guy in the cockpit with the funny hat sort of looked like you, Frank.....

Will

Posted By: Will Day | Posted on: May 12, 2009 - 12:27pm
Total Posts: 1955 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 4:19pm

I wish it was me Will. Then I could have been on a boat and told you guys all about it..............

Posted By: Frank J Andruss Sr | Posted on: May 12, 2009 - 3:02pm
Total Posts: 3497 | Joined: Oct 9, 2006 - 6:09am

Frank;
Don't feel bad, speaking for myself as a modeler, I am always looking at ways to make things more realistic, for instance, the most amazing modeler I have ever seen is a guy in Brazil, who makes everything from original blueprints! He makes auto and plane models just like the originals all out of aluminum, rivets, etc. The only thing that differs from the originals, is they don't actually start. True modelers who have the drive and eye for details are a rare breed, we have BIG egos so we strive for perfection, simply because if we are going to spend our time perfecting something, we shoot for the best, but we can always find fault with ourselves as per our models and those made by others.
Take care,
TED

Posted By: TED WALTHER | Posted on: May 12, 2009 - 3:23pm
Total Posts: 3059 | Joined: Oct 16, 2006 - 7:42am

Frank,

I'm a little surprised at your (seeming) sensitivity on critiques -- primarily mine -- of the model. As I stated in my initial post, I thought the model looked nice, but had a few "nits" (dictionary definition: "minute...criticisms") to pick with it.

Garth merely asked me what my "nits" were, and I replied with a list, based on my study of PT 109 for almost fifty years now. I ended the critique list with another compliment on how good the model looked overall. It is a nice-looking model, and I'd love to have it on one of my shelves, but...

As I've stated several times on this message board over the years, I've yet to see what I think is a completely accurate model of the 109 under JFK, this one included.

Sorry, didn't mean to offend.

Posted By: Drew Cook | Posted on: May 12, 2009 - 4:14pm
Total Posts: 1306 | Joined: Oct 19, 2006 - 10:44am

Drew:

No offense taken. I realize how hard some of you modelers work to have the most acurate and detailed models. Heck, I want the same thing for my Exhibit. I guess I just was thinking outloud and was concerned about the man who took the time to build it. Thanks for writing.....

Posted By: Frank J Andruss Sr | Posted on: May 12, 2009 - 5:48pm
Total Posts: 3497 | Joined: Oct 9, 2006 - 6:09am

Drew ...

In a way, Frank has a point ...

Has anyone here ever seen me openly criticize a model?

Drew, you might very well know alot about the 109 and that's good sir. But, maybe Mr. Fraske doesn't ... Or, maybe he was just building the model for the pure enjoyment of the hobby ... or, maybe he was at the cusp of his ability.

Posted By: TGConnelly | Posted on: May 13, 2009 - 6:27am
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered

I don't really know how to respond to that one, Garth, except to say that this mildly scolding tone directed towards me for my critique of Mr. Fraske's model is rather ridiculous...

When Al Ross corrected my long-held belief about the "PT 109" movie boats being 63' or 65' foot Air-Sea Rescue boats, and informed me that they were actually 85-footers, I immediately took this information at face value and accepted it. No one was concerned with my feelings about being corrected (nor should they have been), and I took no umbrage at the correction. Granted, Dr. Ross is a true, published expert on PTs and I'm only an amateur historian/enthusiast.

My post on the model was a specific and detailed response to your question about what, in essence, were questions of detail and accuracy I had with it. A concern with Mr. Fraske's feelings or his talents as a modeler didn't figure into it, nor did I think it was necessary. I still don't. We're not in grade school.

I've both complimented Mr. Fraske's work and critiqued it sufficiently. I won't apologize any further for speaking what I think is the truth, or feel badly about doing so.

It's still a nice-looking model.

Posted By: Drew Cook | Posted on: May 13, 2009 - 8:46am
Total Posts: 1306 | Joined: Oct 19, 2006 - 10:44am

Again, I was misunderstood. Par for the course of my life lately.

Posted By: TGConnelly | Posted on: May 13, 2009 - 3:00pm
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered