The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Sun Apr 20, 2014 11:34 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 194 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Nov 16, 2013 11:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 12:48 pm
Posts: 719
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
bbw wrote:
Trumpeter is releasing the surrender figures set for the kit


I've heard the circumference of MacArthur's pipe is off by .0000023 mm….frigging Trumpeter…

Bob

_________________
Image


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Nov 16, 2013 4:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 7910
Location: Calgary, AB/Surrey, B.C., Canada
rick_bauer wrote:
found this and ordered it....

http://www.freetimehobbies.com/1-200-po ... wood-teak/

they have some other after-market parts...anyone every dealt with this vendor?

Freetime is a sponsor of this site and is about as trustworthy as you can get.

_________________
Yo dawg, I heard you like PE, so I put some PE in your PE so you can use PE on your PE.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Nov 16, 2013 6:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 4:38 pm
Posts: 838
Location: The Buckeye State
Elvis965 wrote:
bbw wrote:
Trumpeter is releasing the surrender figures set for the kit


I've heard the circumference of MacArthur's pipe is off by .0000023 mm….frigging Trumpeter…

Bob

:lol_3: :rolf_3: :lol_pound:

_________________
_________________
James

http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery/users/James-Guard/user-index.html


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 17, 2013 12:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 31, 2013 1:10 pm
Posts: 192
wargrider wrote:
I also received this monster yesterday.
I just look for the hull and here are my thoughts:
the bow is much better than for example the 1/350 Tamiya kit.
the bottom rear section is all wrong, same mistakes as the Bismarck. Difficult to correct but not impossible with the plans.
I have the hnsa plans and I wonder if the plans from floating drydocks may help a little more to have more cross section drawings to make some
template for the corrections, anyone can help?


The Bismarck is also wrong all along the entire sides, just where you have huge grille/sliding door/side strake details...: That kit has a hull shaped like a canoe, and correcting it is close to sculpting a new hull outright...: Very close to impossible... I would like to know in what way the Missouri shares its mistakes in the lower rear...

The (wrong) absence of indent above the Missouri's outer props is a given, but the lack of squareness in the Bismarck's lower sides also affected the entire tail: The Missouri at least seems to start from a more plausible-looking squarer hull...

Does the Missouri come with metal guns?

Gaston


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 17, 2013 8:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2011 1:17 pm
Posts: 15
no metal guns...
I've started to consider how to correct the hull with Walkowiacz plans. It seems possible to ahieve something acceptable.
But the hull is not as bad as the Arizona or the Bismarck. And I tried to dry fit the superstructure: every pieces goes together very easily and acurately.
With Pontos detailed set, it will be impressive!!


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 17, 2013 8:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2011 1:17 pm
Posts: 15
Image
Image
Image


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 17, 2013 12:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:22 pm
Posts: 26
I got mine in from Brandon last week and I must say I am relieved and impressed. The box is huge! I was skeptical of this kit due to all the doom and gloom I had been reading here. I almost canceled my pre-order because of it. I don't have plans but I have compared the hull to dry dock images and I think the hull looks pretty good. Not perfect. Prop indents? To be honest I can hardly see them in dry dock images of the real Iowa's so this is not a deal breaker to me. It will still be very impressive to the untrained eye.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 17, 2013 1:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 1:54 pm
Posts: 79
I've been looking at my kit's hull too and I think it looks right. I don't have plans yet (have some on order from Floating Drydock), but I have been comparing the hull to the hull lines in Stillwell's Missouri book. In the stern, it doesn't look bad at all. As you can see in the side view above, there is a slight indent above the screws. It looks similar to what I see of photos of Iowa class ships in drydock, as well as the hull lines in the Stillwell book. So far, in my limited opinion, I'd have to say this is the best Iowa class hull I have seen on a mass-produced kit-- clearly better than the 1/350 Tamiya kit. Until I learn differently, I'm quite pleased with this kit.
Bill M.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 6:18 pm
Posts: 3
hawkertech97 wrote:
I got mine in from Brandon last week and I must say I am relieved and impressed. The box is huge! I was skeptical of this kit due to all the doom and gloom I had been reading here. I almost canceled my pre-order because of it. I don't have plans but I have compared the hull to dry dock images and I think the hull looks pretty good. Not perfect. Prop indents? To be honest I can hardly see them in dry dock images of the real Iowa's so this is not a deal breaker to me. It will still be very impressive to the untrained eye.


I know this is going to go over well, but.
Sometimes the rivet counters forget there are other who are not as insane for detail as they are.
let you own wants guide your building and forget the rivet counters.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 17, 2013 8:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:22 pm
Posts: 26
macemann wrote:
hawkertech97 wrote:
I got mine in from Brandon last week and I must say I am relieved and impressed. The box is huge! I was skeptical of this kit due to all the doom and gloom I had been reading here. I almost canceled my pre-order because of it. I don't have plans but I have compared the hull to dry dock images and I think the hull looks pretty good. Not perfect. Prop indents? To be honest I can hardly see them in dry dock images of the real Iowa's so this is not a deal breaker to me. It will still be very impressive to the untrained eye.


I know this is going to go over well, but.
Sometimes the rivet counters forget there are other who are not as insane for detail as they are.
let you own wants guide your building and forget the rivet counters.


Like a t___ in a punch bowl I will guess based on some others posts here. And I agree with you. I love the small details but I do not like obsessing over miniscule details and turn to a rivet counting. Aint nobody got time fo dat!


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 4:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 31, 2013 1:10 pm
Posts: 192
There's something I don't quite get, so maybe someone can enlighten me:

I put a waterline to the photo of the kit (very nice useful photo btw: Thanks!), and it looks as if to match the real ship's floating "attitude", I have to draw a line that makes it seems like the kit's stern "sits" noticeably lower in the water than the bow: Is this possible, or what is going on here? Note the real ship's waterline paint line is also not quite level, but is still seemingly closer to level than the quite large "tail down" sit of the kit...

Image
Image

Gaston

P.S. Another thing; in these two images, it turns out the distance from the rear of the front funnel to the tip of the stern are both roughly equal at 107.3 mm on my screen, and yet the distances from the front of the front turret to the tip of the bow ended up being quite different: It could be nothing, given one photo of an extremely large object, but again it could be worth checking out...

G.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 5:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2011 1:17 pm
Posts: 15
Well, my picture was taken perfectly in a perpendicular angle to the ship, and so is your photo. It is difficult to be sure like this.
I'll check my kit, maybe by putting a masking tape for the waterline and take another pic.
I can check the proportion with the plans.
I'm not a rivet counter, but for me the overall shape is very important. Once you noticed something, your eye focus on it...


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 9:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 1:54 pm
Posts: 79
A couple of thoughts on this photo comparison-- first, it seems the best, most accurate way to check the hull out is to measure against plans known to be correct. I am assuming that the Floating Drydock plans are and have ordered a set along with their BB-63 Plan E-Book, so I can check this out.
Secondly, the photo of the USS Missouri on display seems to show the ship riding high out of the water at the bow--- look at the boot topping. Just my thoughts...
Bill M.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 9:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 10:55 am
Posts: 27
I too, think that this hull looks great. The indent or lack thereof was spoken about a while ago from others but it doesn't bother me too much. I also won't be placing my model in a museum and 90% of anyone that sees mine will not notice anything wrong with it when completed. Just have to do a great job on modeling in itself. Pontos parts will indeed make this outstanding! With all that bling, I probably wont be making this RC. I can't wait to see some posts of a build! Thanks to those that continue to post pics on this site! I have to finish up other models before I can get to this but I am thinking this kit will be my first posting in the gallery.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 11:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 12:18 pm
Posts: 1068
Location: Salt Lake City, USA
Gaston wrote:
There's something I don't quite get, so maybe someone can enlighten me:

I put a waterline to the photo of the kit (very nice useful photo btw: Thanks!), and it looks as if to match the real ship's floating "attitude", I have to draw a line that makes it seems like the kit's stern "sits" noticeably lower in the water than the bow: Is this possible, or what is going on here? Note the real ship's waterline paint line is also not quite level, but is still seemingly closer to level than the quite large "tail down" sit of the kit...

Gaston

P.S. Another thing; in these two images, it turns out the distance from the rear of the front funnel to the tip of the stern are both roughly equal at 107.3 mm on my screen, and yet the distances from the front of the front turret to the tip of the bow ended up being quite different: It could be nothing, given one photo of an extremely large object, but again it could be worth checking out...

G.


So it's got a little bit of "bananna" going on, just like the Bismarck kit...

_________________
-Jason Channell


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 11:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 1203
Location: New Orleans, LA
Channell wrote:
Gaston wrote:
There's something I don't quite get, so maybe someone can enlighten me:

I put a waterline to the photo of the kit (very nice useful photo btw: Thanks!), and it looks as if to match the real ship's floating "attitude", I have to draw a line that makes it seems like the kit's stern "sits" noticeably lower in the water than the bow: Is this possible, or what is going on here? Note the real ship's waterline paint line is also not quite level, but is still seemingly closer to level than the quite large "tail down" sit of the kit...

Gaston

P.S. Another thing; in these two images, it turns out the distance from the rear of the front funnel to the tip of the stern are both roughly equal at 107.3 mm on my screen, and yet the distances from the front of the front turret to the tip of the bow ended up being quite different: It could be nothing, given one photo of an extremely large object, but again it could be worth checking out...

G.


So it's got a little bit of "bananna" going on, just like the Bismarck kit...


Trumpeter design team?

Image

But, seriously, this looks like it has promise. With a good (and expensive!) PE set, it would be money... or made of money. Or purchased with its weight in gold. Or I'm divorced. One of those.

_________________
- Chris

Current builds:
* 1/700 USS Nevada
* 1/700 USS Maine
Near Future:
* 1/700 Scharnhorst
* 1/350 Yamato


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 12:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 1:54 pm
Posts: 79
Channell wrote:
Gaston wrote:
There's something I don't quite get, so maybe someone can enlighten me:

I put a waterline to the photo of the kit (very nice useful photo btw: Thanks!), and it looks as if to match the real ship's floating "attitude", I have to draw a line that makes it seems like the kit's stern "sits" noticeably lower in the water than the bow: Is this possible, or what is going on here? Note the real ship's waterline paint line is also not quite level, but is still seemingly closer to level than the quite large "tail down" sit of the kit...

Gaston

P.S. Another thing; in these two images, it turns out the distance from the rear of the front funnel to the tip of the stern are both roughly equal at 107.3 mm on my screen, and yet the distances from the front of the front turret to the tip of the bow ended up being quite different: It could be nothing, given one photo of an extremely large object, but again it could be worth checking out...

G.


So it's got a little bit of "bananna" going on, just like the Bismarck kit...

I just think it is risky to draw any conclusions from comparing two very different photos, taken at different ranges, with different cameras, etc., particularly when you consider the quite differing lengths of the model and the real BB-63. It is well known that cameras can distort depending on length of lens, field of view, etc. The most accurate measurement would be comparing to a set of accurate plans with the model in hand.
Bill M.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 12:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 12:18 pm
Posts: 1068
Location: Salt Lake City, USA
It was easy enough to slightly warp the boot top on the Bismarck to compensate and this looks no different... god help anyone who wants to do a waterline display though!

But you're right Petrolgator.... throw a killer aftermarket set or 2 at the "Big Mo" and you will get something truly spectacular (and expensive!). The plainness of the hull and superstructure is actually a benefit when it comes to add ons!

Bill, there is some truth to that but I see A LOT of Trumpy "DNA" in these pics. I guess we'll know for sure if/when people start having trouble painting the boot top like the Bismarck. :heh:

It was hard to cancel my preorder a couple months back but I think I'll be glad I'm waiting another year or so to build one... and I WILL build one!

_________________
-Jason Channell


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 12:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 3:55 pm
Posts: 2541
Location: Virginia
A note on the stern heavy appearance, BB-64 is stern heavy as well and the ship's clinometer will confirm that. We're partly stern heavy because we're empty and also intentionally to help the rain water run to the stern instead of pooling. The later is only partially successful. Don't know for sure but I'd guess BB-63 as well as the rest of the BBs are the same.

If you want a precise measurement of how far off an "even keel" we are let me know and I'll make note next time I'm aboard.

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 1:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2013 4:26 pm
Posts: 25
Most ships are designed to have a positive trim. Among other things, it steers better, cuts on vibrations, allows for better drainage of tanks, keeps the deck dry and so on, the list is quite long actually. The only time you dont want such a trim is when the squat becomes an issue.

As far as this kit goes, i like what i've seen so far.

_________________
On the bench;

-An old friend, the Shell Welder.
-1/200 Arizona (Mk1 dx set)
-1/350 Prince of Wale (Pontos Duke of York)


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 194 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: amiers, MSNbot Media, potchip and 15 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group