The PT Boat Forum
http://www.ptboatforum.com/cgi-bin/MB2/netboard.cgi
» Forum Category: PT Boats of WWII
http://www.ptboatforum.com/cgi-bin/MB2/netboard.cgi?cid=101&fct=showf
» Forum Name: PT Boats - General
http://www.ptboatforum.com/cgi-bin/MB2/netboard.cgi?fct=gotoforum&cid=101&fid=102
» Topic:
My PT-109 redo reveal
http://www.ptboatforum.com/cgi-bin/MB2/netboardr.cgi?cid=101&fid=102&tid=3814
Greetings all.
It was painful but I'm glad I went through with it. Since the original build of this model more details came to my attention. I'll walk you through the changes but let's start with the original build I finished back in 2010? Where's the time gone!
Here are the photos of the completed build. Put a fork in it! Im done!! :-)
I took a lot of grief over the ropes holding the temporary mount of the 37mm. Former sailors told me that the tie down of the rope was all wrong. Ready later the tie down was described as similar to how canons were secured to old sailing ships. You can also see that I've relocated the depth charges to the proper location and the toe rail was removed and deck repaired. Finally the armor plate was secured to the front of the bridge and I improved the wind screen detail.
Here you can see I added the lower stabilizer bar for the torpedo tube mount. You can also make out some of the added detail on the starboard side of the cockpit. I also fixed the LUX pull on the side of the Day Cabin changing it from square to round.
Here you can see the cockpit detail a little better on the starboard side.
Some more shots.
Here you can see I corrected the forward starboard side window of the Day Cabin below the hatch which should match the two on the forward side of the cockpit.
Side by side comparisons of the 109 and the Out Of The Box model.
Thanks for looking!
Dave
David Waples
Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Apr 19, 2015 - 10:49am
Total Posts: 1679 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm
She looks great Dave. All those changes were well worth the work and I know you sleep better at night knowing they are done. Been there. Well ever since November my 109 has been sitting on the desk in various stages of completion as I push it from side to side while working on the newest drone. However, if all goes well, she will hit the paint shop this week and be ready to join the reunion fleet that is slowly, very slowly gathering. Gosh I love that cradle and mounting board. They are a work of art in themselves.
Posted By: Roy Forbes | Posted on: Apr 19, 2015 - 2:46pm
Total Posts: 371 | Joined: Sep 5, 2012 - 4:57pm
Nice Dave! Great Job!!
Here is a diorama I just found, that might have a few thinking here.
[url]http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=37128[/url]
Take care,
TED
Posted By: TED WALTHER | Posted on: Apr 19, 2015 - 3:56pm
Total Posts: 3059 | Joined: Oct 16, 2006 - 7:42am
Nice, Dave.
So...the 115's smoke generator nozzle originally faced to starboard, instead of to port?
Wonder why the difference?
Posted By: Drew Cook | Posted on: Apr 21, 2015 - 5:47am
Total Posts: 1306 | Joined: Oct 19, 2006 - 10:44am
Hi Drew, I am fairly certain that the smoke generator tank could be placed in the rack and strapped down in either direction, so the nozzle direction is entirely a random thing, based on who last strapped the tank in.
Mike
Posted By: Michael Vorrasi | Posted on: Apr 21, 2015 - 6:24am
Total Posts: 72 | Joined: Jul 1, 2013 - 11:46am
Hi David, was reading about how you re-arranged the ropes for the 37MM gun. This got me thinking. Did the 109 crew really expect that the gun would be fired in such a lashed down temporary state? I have read that they got the gun that day and merely lashed it down as deck cargo, basically to keep it from being swiped if left ashore while they were off on the mission.( Apparently scroungers were in plentiful supply in the South Pacific.) OTOH, Barney Ross was reportedly manning the gun to fire it. Would those ropes really hold back that recoil, and would not the spades on each arm of the gun carriage (designed to dig into dirt) actually tear up the deck if fired? Just wondering what others think.
Mike
Posted By: Michael Vorrasi | Posted on: Apr 21, 2015 - 6:33am
Total Posts: 72 | Joined: Jul 1, 2013 - 11:46am
Nice, Dave.
So...the 115's smoke generator nozzle originally faced to starboard, instead of to port?
Wonder why the difference?
Drew,
To be fair, the Revell instructions would have you place it that way IIRC.
Mike, IMHO, Unless those ropes were really tight, I wouldn't want to be anywhere near that gun if fired on the deck in that configuration. Probably the safest place would be in front!
Nice plinth Dave.
Best Regards,
Stu.
Posted By: Stuart Hurley | Posted on: Apr 21, 2015 - 8:12am
Total Posts: 255 | Joined: Mar 19, 2013 - 3:32am
Nice, Dave.
So...the 115's smoke generator nozzle originally faced to starboard, instead of to port?
Wonder why the difference?
Drew,
To be fair, the Revell instructions would have you place it that way IIRC.
Nice plinth Dave.
Whoops, must have had a bit of ' double clickiness' on this one, perhaps I need a drink.
Best Regards,
Stu.
Posted By: Stuart Hurley | Posted on: Apr 21, 2015 - 8:12am
Total Posts: 255 | Joined: Mar 19, 2013 - 3:32am
Dave, Mike and Stu,
Certainly aware of the fact that the smoke generators on the 80' Elcos could be strapped in either way, its just that the large majority of vintage photos I've seen show the secured generator's nozzle to port, which seemed to be the preferred or standard installation of that piece of gear on those boats.
Posted By: Drew Cook | Posted on: Apr 21, 2015 - 10:11am
Total Posts: 1306 | Joined: Oct 19, 2006 - 10:44am
Nice, Dave.
So...the 115's smoke generator nozzle originally faced to starboard, instead of to port?
Wonder why the difference?
For the record I put it on backward by accident. The only photo I have of the 115 shows the nozzle pointing straight back but that was later on after radar was added. You got me Drew. :-)
Dave
David Waples
Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Apr 21, 2015 - 9:01pm
Total Posts: 1679 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm
Hi David, was reading about how you re-arranged the ropes for the 37MM gun. This got me thinking. Did the 10i9 crew really expect that the gun would be fired in such a lashed down temporary state? I have read that they got the gun that day and merely lashed it down as deck cargo, basically to keep it from being swiped if left ashore while they were off on the mission.( Apparently scroungers were in plentiful supply in the South Pacific.) OTOH, Barney Ross was reportedly manning the gun to fire it. Would those ropes really hold back that recoil, and would not the spades on each arm of the gun carriage (designed to dig into dirt) actually tear up the deck if fired? Just wondering what others think.
Mike
Hard to know for sure. I'm afraid it's lost to time. Barney Ross said that the wheels were still on the gun. Donovan's account was that the axle was mounted to timbers. Another crewman described coconut logs used. I went with the Donovan description plus how one crewman described the rope configuration. I thought it would be a nice tribute so we'll leave it at that.
Dave
David Waples
Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Apr 21, 2015 - 9:08pm
Total Posts: 1679 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm
I remember talking with PT-109 Crewmen GERARD ZINSER, who told me their was a gun on the bow, and that it was lashed to the deck, but that was all he said about it..................
Posted By: Frank Andruss | Posted on: Apr 22, 2015 - 3:18pm
Total Posts: 3964 | Joined: Feb 9, 2007 - 11:41am
What color was the gun ??
Posted By: Roy Forbes | Posted on: Apr 22, 2015 - 8:28pm
Total Posts: 371 | Joined: Sep 5, 2012 - 4:57pm
Dave,
May I ask why you moved the depth charge rack inboard to where the depth charge has to roll across the deck before dropping overboard?
Jimmy
Posted By: Jimmy | Posted on: Apr 23, 2015 - 12:08pm
Total Posts: 2 | Joined: May 3, 2022 - 11:08am
Hi Jimmy
The depth charge rack was away from the edge of the deck. We have a couple of photos that show this. First this is a photo of PT-109 from the Kennedy family used on Robert Bollard's book jacket.
Another poor quality PT-109 photo also showing the depth charge rack inboard
Boat in foreground of the 61 boat is reported to be PT-109. Based on dates and information from the skipper of PT-61 (Thank you Ted) this should be PT-109. Note the inboard depth charge. I don't think we can get better evidence than this. If only we had a photo of the 37mm on the deck. I guess we can't have everything! :-)
David Waples
Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Apr 23, 2015 - 9:10pm
Total Posts: 1679 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm
