The Ship Model Forum

It's all good Hank... for the me the fun is in building anyway and it gives me an excuse to put the old stuff away for a while and start fresh (hopefully doing an even better job too!)

I mixed your name up with Bill though and was talking about you... though I value Bill's opinion as well. :thumbs_up_1:

Jason,

Sorry to hear about your shipyard "typhoon". But, it's happened to others (me, included) at one time or another - you'll get past it.

I, am also a USS NEW JERSEY vet and agree with you that the banana issue is for the monkeys. I also think that the hull above waterline appears to be right. I'm waiting to see how some others have approached lower hull modifications but I may go ahead and start work on the hull as is. Can't wait forever.

Good luck with your salvage operations!

Hank

I'm not sure why we are still arguing about the banana.

I initially thought the same from looking at pics of the kit vs pics of real Iowas, but once I held the hull in my hands and compared to pics of the real thing from similar angles as the pics it seemed to me everything is basically OK above the waterline. Having spent an afternoon on the decks of the USS Iowa recently helps too; it all "feels" right to me. The stern does NOT stick up too high and the maindeck lines look correct to the eye.

And considering Hank actually served on the New Jersey his opinion holds a lot of weight too.

Under the waterline is another story but for now the consensus seems to be the banana argument should be thrown to the monkeys.

Anyway, I'm about 1/2 moved into my new place and have a pontos set on the way. My built (and 1/2 built) models didn't make the trip well; it's a veritable Pearl Harbor in my model shipyard as hardly anything got through the move without at least some damage. (My Bismarck got it the worst... it got dropped and while it's fixable, it makes me want to cry just to look at it. :cry_3:)

At least my stash is all paid for. :tongue: It looks like my hobby is going to start from square 1 too. Moving sucks.

Did you account for the fact that the ship at Pearl Harbour lacks the 16" ammunition that would've weighed her bow down a bit more, changing the pitch of the ship? You should use a photo of a ship in service.

[quote="Timmy C"]Not a good photo for comparison, Gaston - the photographer was clearly some height above the main deck, given that you can see the top of turret three. Furthermore, the line you drew cuts across the middle of the deck bollards, meaning your line does not accurately trace the deck curvature, EVEN IF the photo had been taken exactly at deck level![/quote]

Actually what was wrong was not so much with the photo but with the drawing's coloured lines I added, and the way I drew the red line to match the bottom: The drawing is depicted quite stern-up, and that does exaggerate the "perking up" of the tail: I tried to match the keel angle more precisely this time around, and with a better comparison picture as well...

The red line (in the drawing) is now quite precisely level with the keel (with calipers). On the real ship photo, it is pretty close to level with the black painted line, which does match the keel on the real ship (I had to elevate a bit from the black line towards the front, as the viewing angle is not entirely centered: This compensation of mine [i]reduces[/i] the difference with the drawing):

[img]http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj284/gaston11_2008/gaston11_2008026/Capture3_zps58b731ce.jpg[/img]
[img]http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj284/gaston11_2008/gaston11_2008027/CVN72-D3_USS_Missouri_1769_zps9551d97b.jpg[/img]


Even with all these precautions, the drawing is actually pretty far off "character": It doesn't even have much freeboard emphasis at the front for cutting waves at the bow (unlike what the real thing displays prominently): Despite the corrections to allow for the tilted drawing image, and the not-perfectly-square photo, the drawing still looks a bit like the ship wants to go both ways...

Yuk.

Gaston

You can clearly see deck equipment and various items under the red line in that photo. How could this be possible if it DID (it does not) trace the true deck line? A vision check-up is in order I feel. I actually laughed at first glance of this photo. Another misleading red lined photo from guess who. My TFW plans from FD show an up-swept stern. This is the second time I have stated this in this thread with no argument to the contrary. So is Floating Dry Dock selling crap drawings or is someone else on this thread shoveling it? The Trumpy MO is not a perfect kit but neither is Nichimo, Tamiya or Hasegawa kits.

[quote="Timmy C"]Not a good photo for comparison, Gaston - the photographer was clearly some height above the main deck, given that you can see the top of turret three. Furthermore, the line you drew cuts across the middle of the deck bollards, meaning your line does not accurately trace the deck curvature, EVEN IF the photo had been taken exactly at deck level![/quote]
And then there is the distortion present in every camera and lens. Also with an object as long as an Iowa-class battleship, when taking a broadside view, the bow and stern will be at very different distances from the camera than will be the ship's center. This is the second time (that I know of) that Gaston has made this photographic comparison. I'm no more convinced now as then. I believe the more correct comparison would be to plans which are known to be accurate.
Bill M.

Not a good photo for comparison, Gaston - the photographer was clearly some height above the main deck, given that you can see the top of turret three. Furthermore, the line you drew cuts across the middle of the deck bollards, meaning your line does not accurately trace the deck curvature, EVEN IF the photo had been taken exactly at deck level!

Supposedly the Iowa's rudders are independant, so the jammed rudders of the Bismarck would not have happened...

Yet doesn't the Bismarck have twin rudders? I'm curious about this...

In any case, here is the extent of the Missouri's banana issue, as it appears against any similar photo:

The drawing is unfortunately not level with the bottom of the image, so my lines on it had to look "staircased" to match the keel's attitude: It's rough but gives a notion of the "banana" issue, which may still be worse on the kit:

[img]http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj284/gaston11_2008/gaston11_2008023/Capture3_zps2465ddb8.jpg[/img]
[img]http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj284/gaston11_2008/gaston11_2008023/uss-missouri-bb63_4_zpse886af57.jpg[/img]

The greater relative prow upswing (vs stern upswing) of the real ship says it all really...

Gaston

For the record, I paid about $280 (US) for the 'Mo... I'm sure the price will go down with time. I've seen some really beautiful Nichimo Yamatos too... that one takes [i]real[/i] skill to pull off well however!

I found out the hard way on my previous build log that Bismarck lovers are a bit... sensitive :dead: but let me set the record straight. Bismarck was a damn sexy ship [url=http://media.photobucket.com/user/imagoodone4sure/media/smileys/smiley-sex019.gif.html][img]http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn116/imagoodone4sure/smileys/smiley-sex019.gif[/img][/url]

She ( and I DO mean SHE... I'll be damned if I let the Nazis change hundreds of years of Nautical Tradition! :mad_1:) was perhaps the best looking battleship of them all.

But looks aren't everything. The Iowas definitely hold a nearer and dearer place in my heart and the Bissy wouldn't have stood a chance against an Iowa Class in battle either. I cannot wait to get started on the 'Mo!

I bought my 1/200 Nichimo Yamato "joke" for $175 brand new. How much is this 1/200 Missouri?

Also Bismarck doesn't look "girly" next to MIssouri. Take off the extra long bow and the extended stern and Missouri looks like the girl with her slender lines.

Good luck with the build Channel. Looks like a lot of fun.

Gaston I thought the banana issue was settled almost 2 months ago. Peel the thing, eat it and let it go. The Iowa's have a slight up-swept stern. My Floating Drydock plans confirm it. Or are you now going to say those plans are bogus and inaccurate too? And now let hear you pump up Nichimo 1/200 models again that are of ships that no one even cares to build. Lets not forget that the 1/200 Yamato they made is an overpriced toy joke.

Jason - Ditto what Tom said re. the plating, etc. I may scribe the upper two rows of horizontal plating up forward with a divider point or backside of an Xacto knife, but nothing deep. Just enough to be denoted after spray painting the hull.

Tom - Kudos on the Movie Projection Booth!!! Not many people are aware of that little bit of IOWA Class Trivia.

It's a shame that for the price we've paid for this kit that it isn't 100% correct - I find that the fault of Trumpeter and either their incompetency to produce a correctly shaped hull (design/production) or their bean counters who probably pulled the plug on any further R&D on the model.

I may try to compare the body plan in the Floating Drydock MISSOURI Plan Book with their sheer plans by frame #'s. By masking off the model hull with frame #'s, I could then make paper dolls at body plan stations per the body plan and compare to the hull and see where and how much the hull is off. That would then establish a base line for reconstruction (or not).

Something else I just noticed about the picture of MISSOURI on the box top of the kit - The hull of the ship is riding too high out of the water. Almost as if the artist was painting it from the ship as it is moored in Pearl Harbor. And that is NOT how the ship in commission would sit in the water.

Hank

If one closely examines the HNSA general arrangement profiles the deck line is level from about frame 64 to 180, which would more or less correspond to the actual ship. That is the area between the # 1&2 turrets and the old movie projection house on the fantail. Easy enough to see if this is the case on the model with some calipers.

Cheers. Tom

Many will be waiting with baited breath to see how some of the hull plating comes out....

Cheers. Tom

I'm still not 100% decided but I am thinking I am gonna waterline mine and plate the upper hull with styrene "plates" and butt straps...

Tom wrote:

[quote]Though several of the class have riveted gussets mid ships, even up close any riveting is nearly invisible[/quote]

This is one of the reasons I don't think they need to be shown. It's very similar with all the trenail detail on some of the POF wooden sailing vessels - while it looks beautiful, in reality it would be hard to see the trenails, esp. in the hull planking, maybe more visible with the deck trenails.

I'm sort of waiting to see how some others handle the hull issues and then decide how (and if) I may address the situation.

Hank

It will be interesting to see what different approaches are taken with regards to hull
Acting for those so inclined. Enough photos exist to get it more or less correct, though I have not as yet seen a hull plating plan sheet as yet. Not an easy thing to do correctly in scale, many plating efforts tend to be over scale and a bit cartoonish. Though several of the class have riveted gussets mid ships, even up close any riveting is nearly invisible.

Cheers. Tom

The IOWAs, if memory serves correctly (or there about) had somewhere in the neighborhood of 30-45 TONS of blueprints, so there were lots of drawings from which those ships were built.

I know that Long Beach Naval Shipyard had their working drawings for the 1981-82 refurbishment of NEW JERSEY in hand, (and later MISSOURI also) whether they are in anyway available to the public is anyone's guess. I would think that the various museum organizations would have available for maintenance purposes drawings specific to that ship, but once again, how available are they and so forth. There are working copies that are kept on board along with the ship's operational manuals and instructions. I believe these are usually kept in the Damage Control Office of the ship's Engineering Dept. It would stand to reason that these were part of the permanent ship's records and remained on board.

Listed on the Pontos Instruction sheet #1 are references they used - they got one of the names incorrect, Robert Samuel should have been Robert [b]Sumrall[/b] (IOWA Class Battleships: Their Design...Equipment). I don't have the Trumpeter kit with me so I can't say as to whether or not they list their references - I don't recall seeing any, but I could be mistaken. Generally speaking, kit manufacturers don't list their information sources.

Hank

[quote="BB62vet"]Very good assessment of the drawing in question. Perhaps a sheer elevation of the builder's plans compared to the model hull might be a better comparison.

Hank[/quote]

Thanks Hank.

Yes, some printed elevation numbers would definitely settle the issue. Hard to argue with a printed number on a plan...

Sadly, the availability of those types of plans seems a bit hit and miss. They probably still exist for most things, even of WWII vintage, but they seem among the harder to dig out from wherever they are... With lines and numbers all over them, they are not attractive for publishing purposes, so they are often buried somewhere...

I've called the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum once to get some specific data, and they wanted to charge a lot to produce copies of a whole slew of things I didn't need in one big package... Otherwise they would not do a thing...

It seems incredible to me that kit makers do not start with drawings with [i]actual printed dimensions[/i], before investing a lot of money into moulds... I don't know how hard they look for them, or how hard some are to find... I hope we get the final answer on this, as to me it simply doesn't look right, although it could be fixable.

All the best,

Gaston