Shipbucket

what exactly is wrong about it? the SQS-26 was sourced from friedman's US destroyers, well, at least the outlines. the rest I painted in using pictures..... isn't the SQS-53 the same dome as the 26? both the burke pictures and (as far as I could see) spruance pictures showed the same rubber dome and shape as the SQS-26 of for example the knox and the bronstein, the only thing I can think wrong would be the rubber cover, as the tico indeed has something different (somewhat closer to the rubber dome we previously had) but IIRC, with no metal at the bottom, all rubber.
the SQS-23 is drawn the same way, using friedmans for the outline and pics (but a lot less of them) for shaping and detailing it.
the SQS-56 comes from the perry building plans, IIRC.

if you have different (or better) source material, please show it and I will of course fix it, but as far as I could find out, this is correct.

EDIT: added some of the sources I used. missing is especially the bronstein pic of the SQS-26 which is in friedmans, which I started with .

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

I could swear I posted these somewhere but I guess I didn't. I know I drew them a while back but here they are, the 5"/38 Mk.21 Semi enclosed single mounts:

_________________
"It is better to type nothing and be assumed an ass, than to type something and remove all doubt." - Me

That's not a Mk 28 mount, it's the Mk 21 Mod 3/5/12/15. The Mk 21 Mod 1 (the only other semi-enclosed single mount mod) is similar, but lacks the aft railing.

My breakdown of the 5"/38 mount Marks and Mods is online here. It's compiled from the HNSA Gun Catalog.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

The SQS-26/53 dome is symmetrical top and bottom, and the rubber portion does not extend to the very bottom of the dome.





Both the shape and the coloring are incorrect.

Edited Mk21 post

_________________
"It is better to type nothing and be assumed an ass, than to type something and remove all doubt." - Me

are you certain the cover does not go over the metal part as well, just being reinforced by it? none of my pictures shows any of that metal bottom..... and what do you mean with symmetrical?

also, that first picture in your previous post, is that the rubber cover or is it part of the dome? I could not really place it... if it is the rubber cover, there's indeed some work to do.

that said, I do not think the shape of this dome is perfect, but it is the best source I had available....

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

I suppose a lot of people here, are sticklers to detail and it's good because the parts are accurate, which makes the ship drawing(s) more closely match what you see in the photographs. For myself, I want certain things as close as possible. Otherwise, if it bears a close resemblance, that's fine also. I certainly don't care what a sonar dome looks like, since it's usually underwater and I can't see it anyways.

_________________
."They don't call me good for nothin'"

It needs to be accurate down to the pixel. Anything less is unacceptable. Do it right the first time and that way you don't have to keep revising it.

Anyway, OP updated with small parts sheets I've made. I vote that we delete all the dumb change logs as they're just cumbersome and not worth the space they take up.

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)

Ace.... see at 19:00 the sonar of the AB class.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjFTc8C24kI

Just a question...when did the USN switch to blue for the underwater hull?

_________________
World's Best Okayest Author and Artist