The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Thu Feb 22, 2018 9:52 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2018 5:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:53 pm
Posts: 736
I've read a lot about various model ship hulls that were never quite right (Length, Width, Hull plating, etc.) and the lengths to which some people will go to make them better.
So........here's one more to add to that list. :heh:

Has anyone ever noticed that the TAMIYA 1/350 scale USS New Jersey battleship model hull is slightly not long and wide enough?
An IOWA class battleship is 887 feet long x 108 feet wide.
So........887.0000 feet at 1/1 scale equates to 30.4114 inches at 1/350 scale, or almost 30 1/2 inches.
And 108.0000 feet at 1/1 scale equates to 3.7029 inches at 1/350 scale, or about 3 3/4 inches.
The width of the TAMIYA New Jersey hull comes up short about 1/8 inch which I am not really worried about. The length of the model hull is about 30 1/4 inches long. It should be an extra 1/4 inch longer to about 30 1/2 inches. I would like to correct the length of the model hull, but I am not sure where to cut in order to make the hull longer. I was thinking maybe a cross cut slightly aft of amidships as shown in one of the pics with a red line. If this isn't acceptable, then what would be a better place to cut?

Image

Image

Image

Image


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2018 6:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 3:28 pm
Posts: 204
if you adjust the hull what about the deck depending on where you do it what other parts need adjusting all that work would it be noticeable for 1/4 inch


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:53 pm
Posts: 736
modelmanuk wrote:
if you adjust the hull what about the deck depending on where you do it what other parts need adjusting all that work would it be noticeable for 1/4 inch


I'm hoping just the main deck and the ship hull will need adjusting. There's nothing that a bit of sheet styrene can't fix. :heh: I'm hoping that no superstructure pieces would need changing, but I don't know yet. Depends on where the cut is made.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:43 pm 
Offline
Resin Shipyard
Resin Shipyard
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 1:00 pm
Posts: 551
Location: Bowmanville, ON, Canada
My Calculator gives me a 1/350 length of 30.435"
The photo of your tape measure looks to be about 3/64 past the 1/4" mark, giving a length of 30.2969"
That's a difference of 0.1385". Assuming there is no slight bend or warpage to the hull and your tape measure at the bow is 100% spot on (meaning the little loose metal tab is positioned perfectly), that means the difference is a little over 1/8" or approx 9/64" That's an error of approx 0.46%

FWIW, I find that well within acceptable tolerance range for a large plastic model.

However, if you insist on surgery, the location you suggest is probably the least amount of work as it avoids a lot of items on deck. Also, to be really sure you have measured correctly, mark 30" on a flat surface using a yard stick/straight edge, glue or secure a block of wood at the 0" mark, than gently press the hull down to ensure it's flat, with the bow pressed against the block and mark the stern point. Then use some calipers or a precise scale to measure the last 1/4 to 1/2".

Good Luck!

_________________
Darren (Admiral Hawk)
In the not so tropical climate of the Great White North.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2018 8:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 1601
EJM, I would cut it at the halfway mark of the length of the bilge keels as that is the flattest part of the hull. that is the area that I cut thru to shorten the 1/429 scale Revell Arizona hulls that I'm kitbashing into the Wyoming, Arkansas, New York, Texas, Nevada & Oklahoma.
http://members.boardhost.com/modelfleet ... 02686.html
http://members.boardhost.com/modelfleet ... 04678.html


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2018 11:02 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 6:08 pm
Posts: 78
Location: Yorktown, Indiana, USA
Personally, I would leave it alone. Unless you find that something on the deck or superstructure is wrong in spacing or proportion, you will just have to introduce a corresponding error to the top of the model which will be very noticeable. The hull being 1/4 inch (or 1/8) too long you will never notice. Add or subtract 1/4 inch to the superstructure and it will look off.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2018 12:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2017 7:36 am
Posts: 2
I'm guessing that not every Iowa class Battleship was exactly 887 feet long. The drawings may call that out, but when they were actually laid out, they didn't have computers or precise machinery to achieve exact accuracy


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:44 pm
Posts: 563
Location: Herk-de-Stad, Belgium
Ernie Dinklefat wrote:
I'm guessing that not every Iowa class Battleship was exactly 887 feet long. The drawings may call that out, but when they were actually laid out, they didn't have computers or precise machinery to achieve exact accuracy

That's correct, Ernie!
Every ship built to specification is afterwards measured for certification. The Iowa's are no exception.

Iowa: 887'-2.753"
New Jersey: 887'-6.625"
Missouri: 887'-3" (conform specs)
Wisconsin: 887'-3" (conform specs)

(source: The Iowa Class Battleships by F. Sumrall. In my opinion the bible for anybody trying to build an accurate Iowa class model)

Two conclusions:
1: the official length for the class was 887'3", not 887'. That is a rounded-off figure.

2: the actual exact length between the four ships could differ by as much as four inches. At 1:350 scale that is less than 0.3mm or slightly over 1/100 of an inch. Do you really believe anyone can see that, or even measure that, without advanced laser measuring equipment? Certainly not with a tape measure like you do!

According to my calculation the model should be 30.42 inches long, based on the official figure of 887'3". It looks to me that your tape measure reads 30.3 inches. Would you really bother about .12 of an inch on a total length of 30.42 inches? That's less than 0.4 %.

Please also keep in mind: the thermal expansion coefficient of polystyrene plastic is around 85 µm per meter per degree Kelvin, meaning that if temperature in the room rises 10 degrees your model will expand ca 600 µm or 0.6 mm. That is 2/100 of an inch. And that would translate to more than 8 inches on the real ship.

Because of this - temperature of a model may easily change over 30 degrees, making the brass photoetch rail snap loose from the plastic because of the differences in expansion coefficients - I think that discussions in this small order of difference on a PLASTIC model are useless. If you really want to be that accurate you're condemned to build your model from the original material - steel.

_________________
"There are more planes in the ocean, than submarines in the sky" - old carrier sailor


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2018 11:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 1601
the Wisconsin is actually a bit longer after having her bow badly damaged during collision with the destroyer USS Eaton & a 68' bow section from the Kentucky welded on as replacement.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2018 11:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:45 pm
Posts: 972
Location: Abu Dhabi
Honestly ,I will leave the hull as is ,more disturbing are the overscaled turrets, that is more noticeable.

_________________
No Whine Policy
1.- Modify it
2.- Ignore it
3.- Don't build it


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2018 3:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2015 5:37 pm
Posts: 4
The issue with the Tamiya hull / deck is the spacing around the front turrets and the turrets size. Not to mention the incorrect hull lines. Checkout online documents and you will see. I would just hold out for one of the two new ones.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2018 3:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:49 am
Posts: 276
Location: Bavaria, Germany
I would not worry about this any more. With Very Fire and Joy Yard we will have two new 1/350 Missouris and I have high hopes, especially on the Joy Yard one, that they will be dimensionally correct.

cheers
Uwe


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2018 9:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 31, 2013 1:10 pm
Posts: 563
As the two previous posters said, wait for the imminent new kits.

The Tamiya bilge keels are false, not hydrodynamically correct, being curved, not straight to the flow, and just horrible triangular blobs anyway...

Gaston


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2018 9:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:29 pm
Posts: 1690
DavidP wrote:
the Wisconsin is actually a bit longer after having her bow badly damaged during collision with the destroyer USS Eaton & a 68' bow section from the Kentucky welded on as replacement.

I have heard this one before, but I have my doubts that it changed the overall length. The section removed from the Kentucky hull and welded onto Wisconsin did not extend all the way to the main deck. It might have altered the waterline and perpendicular lengths, but the forward end for overall length is at the main deck.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2018 10:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 1601
then explain this. http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/016470.jpg The Wisconsin's (BB-64) damaged bow is removed.
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/64a.htm
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/016604.jpg The upper portion of her bow is forward of No. 1 barbette and the undamaged portion of the Wisconsin's (BB-64) bow is just aft. Note the gunhouses for her entire secondary battery stored on her deck.
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/66.htm


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2018 3:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 2896
EJM wrote:
I've read a lot about various model ship hulls that were never quite right (Length, Width, Hull plating, etc.) and the lengths to which some people will go to make them better.
So........here's one more to add to that list. :heh:

Has anyone ever noticed that the TAMIYA 1/350 scale USS New Jersey battleship model hull is slightly not long and wide enough?
An IOWA class battleship is 887 feet long x 108 feet wide.
So........887.0000 feet at 1/1 scale equates to 30.4114 inches at 1/350 scale, or almost 30 1/2 inches.
And 108.0000 feet at 1/1 scale equates to 3.7029 inches at 1/350 scale, or about 3 3/4 inches.
The width of the TAMIYA New Jersey hull comes up short about 1/8 inch which I am not really worried about. The length of the model hull is about 30 1/4 inches long. It should be an extra 1/4 inch longer to about 30 1/2 inches. I would like to correct the length of the model hull, but I am not sure where to cut in order to make the hull longer. I was thinking maybe a cross cut slightly aft of amidships as shown in one of the pics with a red line. If this isn't acceptable, then what would be a better place to cut?

Image

Image

Image

Image
No, if you are going to lengthen the hull, make it the center of the ship so you don't have to match any hull contour lines. Where you have your red line, you are hitting taper lines that will be very, very hard to shape in.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Feb 21, 2018 11:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:29 pm
Posts: 1690
DavidP wrote:
then explain this. http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/016470.jpg The Wisconsin's (BB-64) damaged bow is removed.
The removal of the upper part of the bow was necessary to allow the cranes to lift out the lower, damaged, sections of her bow and then lift in the replacement. Note the platform on that bow that was a holdover from when she mounted 20MM there. That same platform is visible here http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/016412.jpg two years after the repair. By that time they would not have added the platform back onto a "new" bow, so obviously the old upper section of the bow was reattached.
DavidP wrote:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/016604.jpg The upper portion of her bow is forward of No. 1 barbette and the undamaged portion of the Wisconsin's (BB-64) bow is just aft. Note the gunhouses for her entire secondary battery stored on her deck.
Notice that in the photo of Kentucky, they call the piece the upper portion of "her" bow, while the lower section is listed as "undamaged portion of Wisconsin's bow". Also note in this photo http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/016600.jpg that Kentucky's bow is still intact, but the prefabricated upper level of the bow is already stowed on the deck. No 20MM platform is installed on this bow section and it is the same size and shape (and stowed in the same deck location) as in the photo with undamaged portion of Wisconsin's bow. Wisconsin's original forward upper deck was reattached. That would make any lengthening over a tiny fraction of an inch highly unlikely.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Feb 21, 2018 12:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 1601
"But there was a “short-cut” available to the shipyard workers. As World War II ended, final construction of another Iowa-class battleship, the USS Kentucky, had been cancelled, but her basic hull was intact. A 120 ton, 68 foot section of the Kentucky’s bow was severed and transported by barge to Portsmouth where it was welded onto the Wisconsin. After the “nose job,” the length of the USS Wisconsin was extended - she was now 889 feet. Her sister Iowa-class Battleships (Iowa, Missouri, and New Jersey) are each 887 feet in length. Thus, the USS Wisconsin became America’s largest battleship ... by two feet."
http://www.n4wis.org/N4WIS/Oops!.html

"BB-64 Wisconsin is allegedly three inches longer than the other Iowa-class battleships. This minor extension in the 887-foot battleship's hull occurred, so the story goes, when shipyard workers placed the bow of unfinished Kentucky (BB-66) on to Wisconsin after her collision with the destroyer Eaton. As Wisconsin is three inches longer, she is the largest battleship currently in the world. A group of New Jersey (BB-62) veterans claim that their magnificent ship is TWO FEET, longer due to a mistake during construction at the Philadelphia Navy Yard in 1944 making her the largest battleship in the world."
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... /bb-61.htm

"Norfolk Naval Shipyard workers fitted a 140-ton, sixty-eight-foot bow section from the unfinished Iowa-class battleship Kentucky to the Wisconsin in record time. Since the Kentucky lacked the famed bull nose of the Wisconsin, her original bull nose was recovered from the damaged portion of the bow and placed on top of the Kentucky portion."
http://www.usswisconsin.org/wp/collision/


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Feb 21, 2018 5:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:29 pm
Posts: 1690
Anecdotes not withstanding, the photos of Kentucky show her prefabricated bow upper deck strapped to the hull before AND after the removal of the lower section of the bow. There was no reason to attach the "bullnose" to the "new" deck because 20MM were not needed and some of the sisters already had their's removed. The whole point of using Kentucky's bow was to speed the repair. Why then would they add the time needed to transfer an irrelevant bullnose? The three stories don't even agree about the "added length". I still chalk this one up to urban legend.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Feb 21, 2018 8:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 1601
if the bullnose is where the bow mounted 20mm guns where located then why do all 4 ships still have them when finally decommissioned in the late 90's even tho you state "some of the sisters already had their's removed"?
Iowa (BB-61) and Wisconsin (BB-64) Philadelphia Navy Yard, September, 1993 http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/016469.jpg
New Jersey (BB-62) 11 November 1999 http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/016260.jpg
Missouri (BB-63) Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard 14 October 2009 http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/016344b.jpg


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: littlewake, Phantom Bill, SovereignHobbies and 14 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