belowdeck parts

[MihoshiK]

could you compare the reference works with this one too, miho?
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNIT_5- ... sketch.jpg
it mght be the difference between the 54 and the 64, or indeed the difference between prototype and production mount.

the belowdecks look to be of the same size, so it might be good to check if both systems can be joined together as one belowdeck installation with the prototype and the production mounting.
would you be so kind to check that, miho? or shall I try to do so if I find some time for it?

That's the one the current part is based on, right?

It's definatively a bit too small, and the shape of the gunhousing is completely wrong compared to the production model. Probably a prototype. And yes, I did check the old unit to the new, and the belowdeck parts were the same size, but a different shape. The current mount has four seperate ammo drums.

Also, OTO doesn't even mention the 54 caliber mount any more. So the prototype was probably a 54 caliber, but they decided to only build the 64 version, which might have required strengthening the mount. It's a pretty energetic weapon

[acelanceloet]

yep, that is the one the current part is based on

a quick comparision. if we dimension with the barrel lengths (127*54 and *64)(red lines) the mount you drew might end up a bit too big. other then that, the shape and size of the belowdecks match up.
the belowdeck parts I drew have 4 different ammo drums too (as had all oto melara 127mm guns, btw) , 2 to the sides and 2 fore and aft, instead of the 'on the corners' you put them, as shown in the earlier concept art (http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/142478133.jpg)

the sizes of the 'concept' should be correct, as those origin by oto melara itself, so I will list them as prototype mount then, but I would ask you to doublecheck the size of your drawing, just because the 2 do not match in barrel length

[MihoshiK]

yep, that is the one the current part is based on

a quick comparision. if we dimension with the barrel lengths (127*54 and *64)(red lines) the mount you drew might end up a bit too big. other then that, the shape and size of the belowdecks match up.
the belowdeck parts I drew have 4 different ammo drums too (as had all oto melara 127mm guns, btw) , 2 to the sides and 2 fore and aft, instead of the 'on the corners' you put them, as shown in the earlier concept art (http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/142478133.jpg)

the sizes of the 'concept' should be correct, as those origin by oto melara itself, so I will list them as prototype mount then, but I would ask you to doublecheck the size of your drawing, just because the 2 do not match in barrel length

Actually, it does. I matched it (And actually made the mount a pixel smaller in all regards after that) to a picture from Bergamini. You have to remember, there needs to be actual space behind the barrel for the rounds to be inserted into the chamber, and for recoil.
In the PDF there's actually the pivot point for the barrel assembly, and it ends more or less exactly where your red line ends in my mount. This would leave enough room for the loading assembly to inset a round behind the gun barrel. If anything, the barrels on the prototype mounts aren't far out enough.

[acelanceloet]

I would agree, was it not that the prototype mount was dimensioned to the mm by oto melara art. that leaves 3 options: we measure the barrel wrong, the barrel goes on after the pivot point, or that reference of the prototype mount is wrong. in the first 2 cases your drawing might be too big, in the third the current drawing is wrong.
have you scaled with the official general arrangement plan? then it is certainly the third case. if it is concept art, of whatever origin, I thrust the plan on navweaps more and it is one of the first 2 cases. EDIT { and now I reread it was an pic. hmmmm that's pretty accurate, of course }

an idea might also be to check with the F125 class, which IIRC would get this gun as well.

sorry for being such a pain in the ass on this here miho, not that I do not thrust your research but there is something off here in one of the 2 drawings, which should be corrected (and if it is in my drawings of the concept, I will correct that myself)

[MihoshiK]

I would agree, was it not that the prototype mount was dimensioned to the mm by oto melara art. that leaves 3 options: we measure the barrel wrong, the barrel goes on after the pivot point, or that reference of the prototype mount is wrong. in the first 2 cases your drawing might be too big, in the third the current drawing is wrong.
have you scaled with the official general arrangement plan? then it is certainly the third case. if it is concept art, of whatever origin, I thrust the plan on navweaps more and it is one of the first 2 cases.

an idea might also be to check with the F125 class, which IIRC would get this gun as well.

sorry for being such a pain in the ass on this here miho, not that I do not thrust your research but there is something off here in one of the 2 drawings, which should be corrected (and if it is in my drawings of the concept, I will correct that myself)

The current drawing is too small. Check, for example, the old Compact mount with it's 54 caliber barrel:




You need room behind the barrel for recoil and the reloading mechanism. Also, you can't take the muzzle brake as part of the barrel, so the situation is actually a bit worse.

[acelanceloet]

well, there we have our problem. according to this reference image from the same source, our compact mount is actually TOO BIG.

(she is 71 pixels, and according to the pic above she would have to be 61)
EDIT as it seems unlikely that our sb drawing is too small (IIRC it has been enlarged even in the past, for the LCF) we can claim that reference inaccurate. now, let's see what size the prototype mountings actually were......

[heuhen]

make sure that you draw an top-view of the gun. I like to draw ships with an top-view, from time to time!

[MihoshiK]

well, there we have our problem. according to this reference image from the same source, our compact mount is actually TOO BIG.

(she is 71 pixels, and according to the pic above she would have to be 61)
EDIT as it seems unlikely that our sb drawing is too small (IIRC it has been enlarged even in the past, for the LCF) we can claim that reference inaccurate. now, let's see what size the prototype mountings actually were......

Huh? I looked for a slightly better version of that image, and total height of the mount comes out as 4,455 meters, or 14.61 feet. At a height of 30 pixels, you can at best argue that the mount is one whole pixel too high?

[acelanceloet]

the height measurements look to be correct to me too, (on estimate), as the mount is just a bit lower then 2 deck high , but the length of the mount including barrel would be 3300 + 6000 mm, if I see it correct, meaning 61 pixels.

[MihoshiK]

the height measurements look to be correct to me too, (on estimate), as the mount is just a bit lower then 2 deck high , but the length of the mount including barrel would be 3300 + 6000 mm, if I see it correct, meaning 61 pixels.

Errr... 9900 mm equals 32.5 feet, which is 65 pixels?