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: Italeri 1/35 PT 109 corrections?
http://www.ptboatforum.com/cgi-bin/MB2/netboardr.cgi?cid=101&fid=102&tid=3079

Does anyone have any clear images of the the modification to the stern of the Italeri 1/35 PT 109 mentioned in David Waples' review on the Modelwarships website? I just can't seem to visualize what the actual correction should be.

[url]http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/ships/misc/pc/PT109-35-it-dw/Italeri-review.html[/url]

The stern though is missing the the slight up angle in the last 10 feet or so as shown in the drawing and visible on the prototype.

Thanks for providing such an interesting and informative forum on these magnificent boats and the lives of their brave, resourceful crews.

Any information about the Italeri kit corrections would be greatly appreciated.
Pete
[:-question-:]

Posted By: Rock1947a | Posted on: Mar 5, 2013 - 12:27pm
Total Posts: 24 | Joined: Mar 1, 2007 - 10:56am

Hey Pete, he means that when viewed from the side, the stern curves up a bit aft of the engine hatch / coaming. Here's a link to a previous thread about it: [url]http://www.ptboatforum.com/cgi-bin/MB2/netboardr.cgi?fid=102&cid=101&tid=2952&sc=20&pg=1&x=0[/url]

Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Mar 5, 2013 - 3:01pm
Total Posts: 2200 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am

Thanks very much Jeff.
That's exactly the verification I was looking for. I'll have to learn to do better searches next time. I hadn't come up with the thread you kindly provided. Thanks again for coming to my rescue.
Pete
[:-cheers-:]

Posted By: Rock1947a | Posted on: Mar 5, 2013 - 5:11pm
Total Posts: 24 | Joined: Mar 1, 2007 - 10:56am

Glad to help Pete. I have trouble finding old posts too sometimes, even ones I made.

I should have said the deck curves up a bit, not the stern. It sounds like I was telling you to build a banana boat...

Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Mar 6, 2013 - 1:24am
Total Posts: 2200 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am

's what we call camber
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camber_(ship)

Tracy White
Researcher@Large

Posted By: Tracy White | Posted on: Mar 6, 2013 - 3:36pm
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered

This from the link you posted:

[green]The camber is a measure of lateral main deck curvature in naval architecture. The curve is applied to a deck transversely, measured as the height of deck at centreline above the height of deck at side.

The practice of adding camber to a ship's deck originated in the era of small sailing ships. These vessels were built with the decks curving downwards at the sides in order to allow water that washed onto the deck to spill off. It adds to the ship's longitudinal strength also.[/green]

It's not what I'm talking about Tracy.

Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Mar 6, 2013 - 4:21pm
Total Posts: 2200 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am

Pete,
Thanks for coming by for clarification and thanks guys for clarifying the correction. You might also want to check out Todd's build on the Model Shipwrights web site. He's done a nice job with the armor fix around the helm and taking a different approach to correcting deck features.

[url]http://modelshipwrights.kitmaker.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=SquawkBox&file=index&req=viewtopic&topic_id=202180[/url]

Please share your work with us!

Dave

David Waples

Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Mar 7, 2013 - 4:39am
Total Posts: 1679 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm

Many thanks to everyone for their kind help.
There's one more thing that's nagging me about the superb Italeri kit which I haven't seen mentioned by anyone. I might have missed this one too.

Does the center of the transom need to be raised slightly to taper more to port and starboard? Maybe it's the angles of the photos, but to my eye the transom is very slighty too flat and should have a more prominent hump (camber).

The photos on pages 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, and 49 in David Doyle's excellent ELCO 80-Foot PT Boat On Deck from Squadron/Signal prompted me to ask this question. Al Ross' wonderful Coastal Forces 1/35 drawings also appear to have more of a transom camber. Perhaps I need stronger glasses.

What do you gentlemen think? Am I seeing things? Please forgive me if this is a dumb question. I don't intend to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Thanks again.
Pete
[:-confused2-:]

Posted By: Rock1947a | Posted on: Mar 7, 2013 - 12:02pm
Total Posts: 24 | Joined: Mar 1, 2007 - 10:56am

I appreciate and value everyone who's trying to help me.

I realize that each modeler is responsible for their own research and which kit issues to modify or ignore in their build. Sometimes errors are made in an individual's research or conclusions. That's the reason I asked for help from the very knowledgeable members of this forum, whose advice I greatly respect.

As mentioned in my previous post, I'd like to have your opinions on whether or not the center of the Italeri PT 109 kit transom should be raised slightly to create more of a camber to Port and Starboard. I think this is a prominent feature that I'd like to make sure I get right.

What do you folks think?

Thanks again.
Pete
[:-question-:]

Posted By: Rock1947a | Posted on: Mar 7, 2013 - 4:44pm
Total Posts: 24 | Joined: Mar 1, 2007 - 10:56am

As Al Ross always says to me, re-read the post it is clear and concise

I've said it once and the actual quote was : "Perhaps you should revisit Dick's and Ted's entries. They are clear, concise, and answer the question."

If you're going to quote me, get it right.

Al Ross

Posted By: alross2 | Posted on: Mar 7, 2013 - 7:00pm
Total Posts: 993 | Joined: Oct 30, 2006 - 8:19pm

Ahoy there Rock 1947a.

The forward to aft rise on a vessel's sides is called sheer. There is positive sheer which is the sheerling rising from amidships or negative sheer which is lowering from amidships. Normally that is. Now the way I see it (not having the kit yet) if the aft sheer towards the stern on the model is too low then that would throw off the shape of the transom too.

I'm not sure where I saw them, but I think there are drawings that show the hull offsets. Ah, I just found the referenced thread that was shown upthread of this thread and it shows the sheerline but does not give a transverse view of the transom.

What I'd do is find a stern on view (90 degrees) of the transom and then calculate an enlarging or reducing scale % by measuring the kit transom at the waterline and then measuring the transom at the waterline on the image. Then you could easily determine what the scale height of the transom on the model should be.

I hope this helps in some way.

Cheers from Peter

"Give me a fast boat for we want to get out of harm's way too."

Posted By: PeterTareBuilder2 | Posted on: Mar 7, 2013 - 8:56pm
Total Posts: 204 | Joined: Dec 8, 2012 - 6:03pm

First let's start with the fact that no kit is perfect. Not every detail will be captured or even captured correctly. Also as we all know with these boats they were constantly in a state of change. With that said let's address what I'm assuming are Stuart Hurley's observations.

There's a builder from the UK who has recently told me that there are a number of "errors" in the kit. He did say that some of them are "hold-overs" from the 596 kit ...

Here's what he sent me:

Deck margin planks are raised (kit correct for some later boats) -

Response - Known issue with Italeri. They picked this up in photographs. It is exaggerated. Italeri said they will consider correcting this on future releases. Todd at the Modelshipwrights site offers a method for correcting this in his build thread.

Deck vents lack internal shutters

Response - Look at Jeff's detailed drawings on the PT-103 web site for how to add this detail.

Lack of deck 'kick up' at stern, but this really is a 'nitpick'

Response - Personal choice. In my opinion it's a noticeable difference and Italeri built it this way due to casting restrictions. Most people wont notice it but for me it's worth correcting.

Throttle push rod cover should be a higher section alongside day room for early boats (kit correct for later boats)

Response - I would refer to Jeff's drawings of the control rod covers.

Starboard side day room grab rail should be close up underneath window panels

Response - There's no such thing so without clarification from Stuart I would ignore this.

Day room hatch should be hinged to port and be of wooden construction (?) (kit correct for later boats)

Response - Good observation. The early boats had this hatch hinged on the port side. I've seen a number of photos indicating this.

Rain strip over day room rear window missing.

Response - Another good observation. Easily corrected with strip styrene

Armour should be full length on port side of cockpit (supplied as small etch piece)

Response - Known issue with Italeri. Jeff's updated drawings clearly show how the armor should be. Todd on his Modelshipwrights thread has done a good job correcting this.

Rear turret angle is too great tilting the gun ring too far forward.

Response - I haven't built it yet but the photos that Italeri supplied me look fine to me. This angle was more exaggerated in later boats.

Torpedo tubes are left and right handed with the tripping latch covers on the outside rear of the tubes. They should all be right handed which neccecitates moving the large cast cover to the other side on the port tubes and replacing a section of flange on the pivot. The tripping latch covers need to be filed off and re-built to the rear and slightly off set to the right of the depth setting cover. They should have some great big wingnuts added.

Response - This is incorrect. There is photographic evidence that there are left and right handed hinges for the torpedo tubes.

[IMAGE]http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n27/David_Waples/PT%20BOATS/PT-117stern.jpg[/IMAGE]

I have replaced the tri-angular locking plates on the deck at the mouth of the tubes as these are a bit heavy.

Response - Modelers choice. They look okay to me.

The mufflers lack the angle brackets to the hull and the little pipes pointed out in the blog.

Response - Correct. Todd on his Modelshipwrights build has done a good job addressing the brackets. In addition he has come up with an interesting solution to the brackets around the exhaust pipes.

The kit instructions would have you fix the mooring bits (?) ajacent to the 20mm in the wrong sense, that is, across the boat rather than lengthways.

Response - Correct.

Here's the link to Todd's build thread at Modelshipwrights. If you're interested in building this kit I think you'll find this helpful. If the link doesn't work just go to the forums section and look for "Building Italeri's PT-109: The Last Night"

http://modelshipwrights.kitmaker.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=SquawkBox&file=index&req=viewtopic&topic_id=202180&ord=&page=1

David Waples

Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Mar 8, 2013 - 5:19am
Total Posts: 1679 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm

Actually, the comment about the tripping levers being incorrect is valid. The tripping levers are not the hinges attached to the breech doors. Rather, they are the devices which tripped the starting lever on the torpedo as it was ejected from the tube. On the top of the first segment of the tube forward of the breech door, you'll see two plates. The aft plate is rectangular and should have two tabs coming off each side. This is the tripping lever cover and the ELCO drawings for the MK 18 tube plus photos show this cover on the starboard side of the tube only.

Al

Posted By: alross2 | Posted on: Mar 8, 2013 - 5:58am
Total Posts: 993 | Joined: Oct 30, 2006 - 8:19pm

I for one would like to see photo's showing the incorrect items that have been mentioned. For the model builder seeing the pieces that are not right might help with the build. As Dave has mentioned, no model is ever perfect, but right out of the box, this PT-109 Kit is the best that has ever been on the market. We must also take into consideration, how many people that will be building this model can say they are experts, and will even know the incorrect items mentioned.

Even myself, who is not a model builder, but know plenty about the boats did not see some of these so called problems with the Kit. I often wonder if we are being too critical sometimes, as not everyone building this model knows that much about the boats. I really would like to see one of these completed models, out of the box, which personally I have yet to see.

Posted By: Frank J Andruss Sr | Posted on: Mar 8, 2013 - 6:57am
Total Posts: 3497 | Joined: Oct 9, 2006 - 6:09am

I think it is probably not feasable, for tooling costs and other reasons, for Italeri to turn out an absolutely perfect model out of the box. As has been menioned, the vast majority of builders will not know the difference; those with the knowledge and the desire can certainly alter specific details to suit their own tastes. It's called scratch-building, and it's part of what mdel building is all about. I just think it's great that Italeri has given us such a great starting point, and has actually listened to our input.

Will

Posted By: Will Day | Posted on: Mar 8, 2013 - 7:48am
Total Posts: 1955 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 4:19pm

I went through a bunch of images I have and found my guess was wrong on the day room hatch opening direction. I found some shots of PT 127 with the hinges to the port: [url]http://www.pt127.org/crew/douglas_rj/photos/pages/UnKnownCrewman_tif.htm[/url] and [url]http://www.pt127.org/crew/douglas_rj/photos/pages/RJD_ByHelmets_tif.htm[/url]. A shot of PT 131 and later boats all show the hinges mounted aft, so without any proof I'll guess again that the change was between the 127 and 131. If anyone has shots showing the 128-130 boats hinge direction, I'd appreciate a heads up.

I think he means the boat hook, which had different mounting locations on the early boats, on this one:
[green]Starboard side day room grab rail should be close up underneath window panels[/green]

David, do you know what images they used that show a raised edge on the deck? The one posted on the build thread looks more like rope or wiring to me. It's on this page: [url]http://modelshipwrights.kitmaker.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=SquawkBox&file=index&req=viewtopic&topic_id=202180&ord=&page=1[/url]

Thanks for the clarifying the torpedo tube details Dr. Ross, you are the Master!

Except for the hull, I think Italeri has done a great job on this boat given time and cost considerations. I doubt ANY model is 100 percent accurate. But I don't think we're being too critical in pointing out corrections and details that master modelers like Bridge and David are willing to fix and /or add. After all, if it's not right, it's wrong.

Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Mar 8, 2013 - 8:03am
Total Posts: 2200 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am

Avast there me heartiy mates.

There might be a few glitches in the Italeri PT-109 kit but a skilled model builder with decent references and/or advice from members here can correct them. If we start getting discouraged about these relatively minor errors we can always dig out one of those ancient 1/32 scale Lindberg PT-109 kits. Now there was akit wirh lots of MAJOR issues. At least with the Italeri kit we have a very reasonably accurate base to work with.

Cheers

"Give me a fast boat for we want to get out of harm's way too."

Posted By: PeterTareBuilder2 | Posted on: Mar 8, 2013 - 8:34am
Total Posts: 204 | Joined: Dec 8, 2012 - 6:03pm

Jeff, thanks for those postings of the boat being built. It shows just what is incorrect and what is being done to correct those issues with the Kit. As this builder continues to add to the post it will certainly be a plus so I can point out some issues with Stan when he builds mine.

Posted By: Frank J Andruss Sr | Posted on: Mar 8, 2013 - 8:41am
Total Posts: 3497 | Joined: Oct 9, 2006 - 6:09am

Wow! This discussion developed into a wealth of information. The more I learn, the more I'm inspired from this exchange of priceless information.

I feel I should provide a brief explanation of my background and motivation. I'm in no way an expert, but I'm fascinated by military history in general, and the WWII Pacific area operations of the USN and USMC in particular. My modeling interests vary with the subjects I read about. I have considerable experience in building plastic kits, but not so much in scratch building details.

In my humble opinion, the Italeri kit is excellent straight out of the box. No doubt, this forum's members who assisted Itaerli, and Italeri's extraordinary willingness to impliment their suggestions are responsible for such a beautiful product. The potential for super-detailing and conversion is limitless. In fact, from other threads on this forum I understand that Italeri plan to produce a supplemental kit of enhancements for that very reason. I'm surprised at the lack of after-market accessories for this kit so far.

As in any kit, there are a few areas that are constrained by manufacturing methods, time deadlines, and the need to maximize revenue. I'm still not sure which boat I'd like my build to represent, so I'm waiting to see exactly what Italeri includes in their supplemental release. In the meantime, I'm tweaking my kit with what In my estimation are universal minor enhancements.

I'd be remiss if I failed to apologize to Dr. Ross for not asking my question on the Yahoo ELCO 80 group he kindly organized.
[url]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ELCO80/[url/]

Although there is some very useful information Dr. Ross and members provided, there hasn't been much recent activity. Do you think I should pose my question there as well, Dr. Ross?

Thanks to all for their comments and suggestions. Please keep them coming.
Pete
[:-cheers-:]

Posted By: Rock1947a | Posted on: Mar 8, 2013 - 8:48am
Total Posts: 24 | Joined: Mar 1, 2007 - 10:56am

Ahoy there.

Partly testing to see if message appears. Index says there was a post made today about 0813 hrs but I only see post to March 8.

Cheers

"Give me a fast boat for we want to get out of harm's way too."

Posted By: PeterTareBuilder2 | Posted on: Mar 17, 2013 - 1:54pm
Total Posts: 204 | Joined: Dec 8, 2012 - 6:03pm

That was me Peter, let me try my post again.

While checking out Todd Michalak's Italeri PT 109 build at [url]http://modelshipwrights.kitmaker.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=SquawkBox&file=index&req=viewtopic&topic_id=202180&ord=&page=1[/url], I noticed a small error on a window of the day room. It's fairly noticable so I thought I'd mention it for those wanting a boat as close to scale as possible. All the windows on the day room, except for the starboard forward one, are the same as the windows on the sides of the chart house. The starboard forward one is a dead light, the same as found on the forward end of the chart house. I'm guessing that this is because the ladder to the hatch would have prevented a window from opening.

The fix would be fairly easy, sand off the drip rail, add a frame the same as on the chart house, and put the plexiglass right behind the frame (the plexiglass on the windows was set fairly deep). Frank Andruss has an image of Russ Pullano in his photobucket album that shows what I'm talking about:

[image]http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p249/ptboats/FrankAndruss/RussPullanoPT195Ron12-01-01.jpg[/image]

Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Mar 18, 2013 - 5:15am
Total Posts: 2200 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am

Damn, I've learned two things tonight!! Thanks for sharing that Jeff. I had to go through my photos and that's just one of many things I haven't picked up on before. Great observation.
Dave

David Waples

Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Mar 19, 2013 - 7:37pm
Total Posts: 1679 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm

Thanks David! I don't want to count Italeri's rivets but I thought this one was worth mentioning.

Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Mar 20, 2013 - 1:29am
Total Posts: 2200 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am

Hi, All. especially David,
This info originated as a a private response to an interested party as to which details I would change on the Italeri kit during my build, with a view to including the model in a book about the 103 class boats. It was not meant to go beyond that person as I am conscious of the fact that I know very little about pt boats, and did not wish to offend anyone here that had an input to the kit. I did not wish to criticise the kit openly as I think that Italeri did a very good job and many knowledgable people had an input to getting it right. Inevitably, due to molding, time and bugetary restrictions, some things slipped through the net. I did in all ignorance identify the boat hook on the starboard side as a rail (I am a newbie) I realised my error as soon as I examined the kit parts, but it is correct that it should be moved up. The breech doors were not mentioned in my original mail and are indeed handed, opening inwards. The other observations are I believe valid.
Best regards,
Stu

Posted By: Stuart Hurley | Posted on: Mar 20, 2013 - 3:43am
Total Posts: 255 | Joined: Mar 19, 2013 - 3:32am

Hi Stu,
You've made some very good observations. As mentioned before no kit is perfect and I'm certainly not offended. I learn new information here all the time. I can also tell you that our friends at Italeri are not offended either. They've told me that they are very pleased with the acceptance of the kit. I'm very proud of the work they did putting this kit together but there's always room for improvement. The value of this forum is people from all backgrounds from our experts to novices put fresh eyes on the subject and we have discussions about them and learn new information.

I've started a list of changes to the kit that I will find very useful when I start mine. I appreciate your input into this process here on on Model Shipwrights. Keep it coming!

Dave

David Waples

Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Mar 20, 2013 - 4:52am
Total Posts: 1679 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm

No problem Stu, and sorry if you noticed my adding ongoing issues to your list. There were some valid points there which Italeri might correct on a re-release. I think any obvious errors should be pointed out, modelers like yourself that go the extra yard should be made aware of them. I hope you feel free to point out or ask about any others that you might discover.

As far as the boat hook goes, according to the drawing for it (which is washed out) PT 163-196 had the starboard boat hook mounted a little lower than other boats and about 10" farther aft. The hook bracket bottom was mounted just above the throttle push rod cover. On all other boats, the boat hook pole was 12" above the deck which placed it about 3" below the windows.

There were a lot of changes made to PT boats, at the factory and in the field. Italeri did a great job getting the boat as it came from the factory right. Digging up field changes can be a nightmare, thankfully the researchers here are a great help.

Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Mar 20, 2013 - 4:57am
Total Posts: 2200 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am

Thanks for your understanding guys. I am learning a lot here. I am an information sponge at the moment. I always want the most accurate model I can build, especially if would be seen in a book which, after all, would be critiqued by yourselves. (I suspect I have been used though. Maybe we can all contribute to a book on our own featuring Jeffs 3D drawings) I am looking forward to your day room drawings Jeff, especially the starboard rail on the roof. I reckon it is in two sections, with the long part having five brackets and the short part with two, with an angled bracket leading in from aft? I hadn't spotted the deadlight either -good call. Interestingly, the boat at Battleship Cove has a shutter on this window, with a cutout in the ladder sides for clearance.
Best regards,
Stu

Posted By: Stuart Hurley | Posted on: Mar 20, 2013 - 5:10am
Total Posts: 255 | Joined: Mar 19, 2013 - 3:32am

Thank you Stu, it is good to be appreciated!

I've got the day room mostly finished but want to at least rough out the engine hatch and aft windshield before posting drawings so I can be sure everything fits right.

You're right, there is a gap in the rail at the aft end of the removable section of the roof, and an angled stanchion at the aft end of the rail, the same as is found on the forward top of the chart house. You can see what I came up with in this thread: [url]http://www.ptboatforum.com/cgi-bin/MB2/netboardr.cgi?fid=102&cid=101&tid=3010&pg=2&sc=20&x=0[/url]. You're also right about the longer section having 5 stanchions. The rails and stanchions are different after PT 138, they switched from brass to wood.

That's interesting about the Battleship Cove boat, I'm going to check it out.

Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Mar 20, 2013 - 6:56pm
Total Posts: 2200 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am

I checked out the photo of the window and ladder on PT 617 at Battleship Cove Stu, I think they are part of the restoration and not what the boat originally came with. Drawings for the 565-624 show steel ladders and the dead light.

Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Mar 21, 2013 - 5:38am
Total Posts: 2200 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am

Hi Jeff,
Yes, the parts list states tubular steel ladders. I originally thought it might be a later style that they made of wood like some of the other fittings. It will be visible through the window though so what do you think about the colour?
They look black in photos. I have seen colour drawings where the ladders are red. The documents available recommend a zinc chromate primer, but do not mention a top coat as far as I can tell.
Regards,
S

Posted By: Stuart Hurley | Posted on: Mar 21, 2013 - 7:34am
Total Posts: 255 | Joined: Mar 19, 2013 - 3:32am

The short answer, "I have no idea", sorry. Hopefully someone else knows.

The only painting instructions I found on the ladder drawings stated "to be zinc chromated and painted to suit" (PT 565-624 drawing). Nothing is stated on the drawings applicable to the 109.

If you haven't seen them already, check the images Al Ross posted of PT 589's day room interior on page 2 of this thread:[url]http://www.ptboatforum.com/cgi-bin/MB2/netboardr.cgi?fid=102&cid=101&tid=2290&st=0&nd=10&pg=1&sc=20[/url]. The ladder looks dark like you mentioned.

The engine hatch ladder is on separate drawings, and just confuses things:
PT 103-120: polish exterior surface
PT 121(?)-150(?): Paint rungs black, sides, support, etc. white

A total guess would be black since it is visible through the dead light, but then again the dead light had a blackout blind.

Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Mar 21, 2013 - 3:27pm
Total Posts: 2200 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am

I remember those photos. It looks like you can slide a panel up to cover the window from the interior. Good find!
Dave

David Waples

Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Mar 21, 2013 - 6:49pm
Total Posts: 1679 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm

Hello,
Thanks, I will probably go with black. Seems most likely.
S

Posted By: Stuart Hurley | Posted on: Mar 22, 2013 - 1:03am
Total Posts: 255 | Joined: Mar 19, 2013 - 3:32am

I asked a veteran of PT 103, Master Chief Jack Duncan, retired, if by some chance he remembered the color of the ladder. He didn't although he's sharper than I am despite the added years. I though everyone would enjoy his response so asked and got permission to post it here:

[blue]I hate to disappoint, but if your guy is talking about "as built", I have no idea. By the time I got on the 103 in 1943, it would have been painted (if it was needed) with whatever paint could be purloined from whatever source.

The bureaucrats who knit-pick the tiny details had not yet been hatched, if you'll excuse the pun. The supply chain, logistics is the new word, was lucky if we got ammo, gas and that goddammed canned grapefruit juice that supposedly kept us from getting scurvy. A canteen cup a day to keep scurvy away when we went months without fresh food. Wait! I digress.

Near as I can recall, the whole interior was white, not dead white, but a white none-the-less to provide lighting. Your modeler would be safe in painting the ladder white, too. If a crewman can't remember, who will ever know? Authenticity was, in those earlier days ---- "whatever."

Except for when the Radioman, an out-of-shape, very nice, non-swimmer kid from NYC, was hiding out from all hands work, our dayroom was mostly unused except for stowing stuff we needed. Nothing extra! We were always fighting weight -- the lighter, the faster.

The tiny windows didn't provide much ventilation, even with the hatch open. Does stifling conjure up the meaning of the humid heat of the Solomon Islands? My Marvelous Marlene, son Jeff and grandson Zack will find out when we take the Valor Tour out there in May, 2014. Our desert heat of 120 degrees does not compare!

The only time I really have an intense memory of being in the dayroom was on our return trip from entering Simpson Harbor at Rabaul on Feb. 29, 1944. I was battered and bruised, the boat was taking a pounding and the skipper or someone told me to go crap-out in the dayroom. The crews quarters would have meant broken bones or further bruises.

A 5-gallon can of Tectyl stored in there, spilled and made a horrible mess during that wildhorse ride -- another memory floating in from God knows where!

All of you and your gang of aficionados are amazing with knowing tiny details of stuff that I not only don't recall, but doubt if I ever knew. We were only interested, I guess, in fighting the boat, not getting to know her innermost secrets.

I do have a vivid recall of when I transferred to the 318 we were derisively called "The Show Boat" Skipper Vince Marin and the whole crew decided we wanted to repaint everything below deck a dead white with all the metal work around the opening, doors, hatches, whatnot, a vivid scarlet. It really was purty! Vince "borrowed" some blue striped officers' bedspreads to cover the bunks. This would have been in late '44 as we were soon to leave our relative isolation at Emirau for Manus, Hollandia and Mios Woendi

And, so that, Mr. Davidson, is how to build a watch, since you asked me what time it was. };-) Jack[/blue]

Jack served as torpedoman on PT 103 from 1943 to 1944. Jack also served on PT 62 and PT 318 as well as the PTFs of the Viet Nam era. He claims, without being refuted, to be the only WW II PT Boater to also have served on the PTFs. He's got a way with words, and let me post some of his life stories here: [url]http://www.pt103.com/PT_Boat_Veteran_Stories.html[/url]. I enjoyed them very much and if you haven't read them yet I'm sure you will too.

Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Mar 22, 2013 - 9:04am
Total Posts: 2200 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am

Amazing stuff! I hope I am half as sharp at that age. Jack's recollectins certainly do reinforce the idea that Out There In The Area, very little about the boats remained pristine for long; each one became a reflection of maintenance supplies/facilities available, the operational tempo, and the dedication of the crews in keeping the boats shipshape. Something for us all to bear in mind when we start nitpicking specifics.

Will

Posted By: Will Day | Posted on: Mar 22, 2013 - 5:13pm
Total Posts: 1955 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 4:19pm

Great stuff Jeff! Thanks for sharing that with us.
Dave

David Waples

Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Mar 22, 2013 - 9:08pm
Total Posts: 1679 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm

You're very welcome.

Will, that's why I stick with "factory fresh with that new boat smell" for my project. Even then the number of minor and major changes, some undocumented in the drawings, is mind boggling... and why I use the word "guess" a lot.

Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Mar 23, 2013 - 12:54am
Total Posts: 2200 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am

It just goes to show the massive amount of work that was needed for the upkeep of these wooden boats. I had a good friend who restored a 20 foot wooden boat, and it took him 5 years to complete the job. I can only imagine the work on a 78 or 80 Foot boat in the war zone just to scrape and paint her, not to mention all the other upkeep of painting everything else, and keeping guns and engines in fine tune.

Posted By: Frank Andruss | Posted on: Mar 23, 2013 - 7:26am
Total Posts: 3964 | Joined: Feb 9, 2007 - 11:41am

David, the easiest fix for the starboard window would be to hang a couple of those nice Royal Model resin life jackets right over top of it...no modification needed at all!

Pat

Posted By: Pat Hutchens | Posted on: Mar 24, 2013 - 5:29am
Total Posts: 36 | Joined: Nov 24, 2012 - 6:03am

Good idea Pat. The other thing I was wondering about is if that window is the same as those on the forward side of the chart house.

Jeff or Dick, if you're listening do you have any thoughts about this?
Dave

David Waples

Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Mar 24, 2013 - 6:15am
Total Posts: 1679 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm

Hi Jeff,
Thanks for taking the trouble to ask about the ladder. Amazing stuff and humbling. Sorry to be a nuisance but should the starboard training crank be further aft than the port. They are opposite each other in the kit. Your partial drawing of the roof cast doubts In my mind and I can't find a photo.
Sorry
Best regards,
S

Posted By: Stuart Hurley | Posted on: Mar 25, 2013 - 12:57am
Total Posts: 255 | Joined: Mar 19, 2013 - 3:32am

In my somewhat shallow effort of building a lazarette and galley area, just so something can be seen through the open hatches, I discovered the perfect tubular ladders for my project...the ladder provided with the 1/32 Tamiya F-4 Phantom kits! I had two to work with. Just shortening them a little was about all the modification I needed. I painted mine semi-gloss black.
If any of you decide to go this route and don't have a Phantom handy, go to "Plane Trading" on Hyperscale and inquire. Great bunch of guys there, too.

Pat

Posted By: Pat Hutchens | Posted on: Mar 26, 2013 - 8:58am
Total Posts: 36 | Joined: Nov 24, 2012 - 6:03am

Pictures!!!!

Posted By: JBG327 | Posted on: Mar 26, 2013 - 5:55pm
Total Posts: 74 | Joined: Sep 29, 2012 - 2:40pm

Sad as it is for me, I have absolutely NO idea how to post photos on here or any other site except through an e-mail attachment or Facebook. I tried to set up a Photobucket account a couple years ago and totally failed. Thank the Lord I'm a better modeler than computer user!

Pat

Posted By: Pat Hutchens | Posted on: Mar 26, 2013 - 6:09pm
Total Posts: 36 | Joined: Nov 24, 2012 - 6:03am