Calling all USS North Carolina & Washington fans

[Luca Bevilacqua]

I saw no reason why such an interesting class did not have a thread yet.

After lerning the hard way (see the Essex class thread) that recent Trumpeter 1:350 releases can present quite a few inaccuracies, I would like to propose to start this thread by discussing experiences in building, shortcomings of, and relative remedies for the 1:350 NC Trumpeter kit.

I hope we can find an expert such as Tracy is for the Essex class.

Yours

Luca

[Tracy White]

Funny timing on your part; I actually started a thread on this yesterday but got busy and had to cancel it before I could finish!

*Incomplete List*

Kit Reviews
* Trumpeter 1/700th BB-55 North Carolina
* Trumpeter 1/350th BB-55 North Carolina
* Classic Warships/Yankee Modelworks 1/350th BB-55 North Carolina

After Market Reviews
* Gold Medal Models 1/350 North Carolina Class Photo-Etch
* Lion Roar 1/350 Super Detail Update Conversion Set
* White Ensign 1/350 USS North Carolina BB-55 Fitting Set
* Yankee Modelworks 1/350 USS North Carolina class Set

Ship Gallery
* USS North Carolina BB-55 by Frank O'Neill
* USS North Carolina BB-55 by David Griffith

Walk-Arounds
* May 2006 by Avery Boyer

Ron Smith is the undisputed expert on North Carolina. I've been helping him research her the last couple months and the amount of information he has is staggering. A lot of it was collected for a publisher who is going to release a book on the two ships, but he has an article of his own coming out in the Nautical Research Guild's May Issue of the Nautical Research Journal. If you have a thing for the ship this is a "must have" issue as it kills myths dead! There is a lot that have been written about these two ships that is wrong, confused, or simply sloppily researched. Ron's put the time in to be able to stand by his work.

I've researched Washington but nowhere near as much as I have the Essex class. I've got pictures Ron's sent me on her (can't redistribute or post them though) so if anyone has questions on Washington feel free to fire away. My thought is to do a book on these two ships after the Essex book, but until I finish the first I won't spend too much time on the second.

Updated list of kit reviews - Cadman

[Timothyo]

Hi-

Since I am far from a Battlewagon expert, and I have been told there is no such thing as a stupid question, here I go........

What are the major differences between the Washington and the N. Carolina in general? If I want to convert my 1/350 Trumpeter NC into the Washington (late war), what are the major changes that need to be done?

Also, what are the best sources of info for this class that are currently available?

Thanks much for any assistance,

Timothy

[Tracy White]

Couldn't tell you what the best source is now.. there's so much misinformation out there. I can say that Ron spent some time helping Navsource on their page recently so you can trust the dates on most of them (not sure if he's helped them correct all of them yet).

Differences between the two above the waterline are minor; mainly a few platform differences. Look at the differences between the two ships on the forward tower late war; North Carolina has one extra that Washington lacks.

I haven't compiled my list of changes yet as I put my kit away to focus on the Essex stuff. I know of a couple more things off the top of my head but I'll have to pull some plans out to check some details first before I stick my foot in my mouth.

There's an area on the flag bridge that Trumpeter neglected to kit up and the stairways from the second deck down to the main deck are represented wrong on the outside; they dropped down to open archways and not watertight doors that are positioned halfway down the ladder!

[Luca Bevilacqua]

Hi Tracy, hi all,

I just got the Lion Roar kit for her.
Metal barrells are nice, P/E below average (I may complement it with some more established producer's fret), overall price/quality is good.
Main barrells are finer than the plastic ones, but still a bit larger (diameter) than plastic barrells for the 1:350 Tamiya Missouri kit.
I wander who got it right.

The seam between the decks is a pain in the ...

Ciao

Luca

[Tracy White]

The seam between the decks is a pain in the ...

BUt it is at least recessed; the Tamiya Missouri decks are similar in break down but the lines are raised, so if you do any sanding you lose the planking. At least with the Trumpeter deck you can rescribe them, and they do line up if you take the time.

[Guest]

Hi guys,

while working to correct the inaccurate doors (sanding them out and carving a archway, instead) near the stairs (the ones Tracy pointed out), I noticed that all the portholes on the level 01 bulkheads seem to be positioned too high.
They are (all but one) lined up at a level which is above the level of the upper part of the doors.
In scale would be more than 2 meters
It seemed wrong to me.
So I went checking with the photos of the ship memorial, available at the steelnavy site.
I just found one pic that seems to confirm that their position is in fact wrong.

Besides the pic makes me wander if the whole 01 level deck was cast to high by Trumpeter.

It is a shame I already assembled the whole level there.

Let me know what you think..

Ciao

[Cadman]

Here are a few more:
USS North Carolina BB-55 Photos by Bob LaPadura
USS North Carolina Walk Around By Jun Villalon Photos by Turner

Reviews and buildups
US North Carolina BB-55 Close in Photo CD by JPS Shipyard Vol. 1

Scratch building the USS North Carolina BB 55 by Ron Horabin
Building the Revell 1/570 USS North Carolina BB-55 by Noel Carpio
Pit-Road 1/700 16" 45 cal USN Gun Turret replacement set

Ships Gallery
USS North Carolina by Richard Sliwka
USS North Carolina by Rick Cotton

[Tracy White]

Besides the pic makes me wander if the whole 01 level deck was cast to high by Trumpeter.

They did; I noticed that myself when I got the kit and laid it out next to my 1/350th plans and it appears that the 01 level is about 2mm too tall. I didn't do anything more than that; it might be that the actual main deck part is right and they just goofed and forgot to subtract the thickness of the deck overlay.

Thanks for the links Cadman!

[Ron Smith]

First is a mid-build review I wrote for Rajen's List: http://www.quuxuum.org/rajens_list/shiprevs.html#TrumpeterNC
Please note it is not an inbox review but an actual build review and you'll need some serious putty, strip stock and sanding sticks. At the end there is a list of parts you should replace and sources.

Tracy, I did send corrections to Navsource for all the major errors and they've all been incorporated.

Luca, Tamiya's 5" barrels are too thin. Lion Roar and L'Arsenal metal barrels are correct.

Frank O. did a very nice build and got the colors correct as far as design sheet and photographic evidence allow us to interpret from the original sources.

The Nautical Research Journal issue Tracy mentioned went to the printer yesterday and should be available through the Nautical Research Guild sometime in June. Until it's out and people have read it I will not discuss the colors or various other myths that surround BB-55 since I took the time to publish the information and have a contract with the magazine. Some documents Tracy found at Seattle NARA were very important to debunking one of the many myths.

[Luca Bevilacqua]

Hi Tracy, hi Ron, hi Cadman, hi all

well... thank you of everything.

Of course the anonymous (stupid) guest that forgot to log in was me.

OK the level 01 will be carefully cut (horizontally) by drilling a series of adjacent holes, than sanded down to correct height and reglued.
I guess Tracy figured out what Trumpeter did wrong.

I will need to assume some medication, before, tough.
I already did to sand down the deck joint and rescribe it.
Just joking of course.

To Ron, first let me say how happy I am that an expert like you, offers some help.
I already read all the excellent research you did on the shipcamouflage site and look forward to reading your article too.
About gun thickness, what about the main guns ?
Trumpeter moulded them the thickest, Lion Roar ones are thinner, Tamiya plastic ones thinner yet.
I know I should get some good source or Steve's barrells but my budget is somewhat costrained...

Ciao to all
Luca

BTW any opinion on the need to buy some more P/E to complement Lion Roar sets.
I usually prefer more established products (Loren Perry's usually comes first in my list) but in this case the barrel deal was to good to pass on.

[Devin]

First is a mid-build review I wrote for Rajen's List: http://www.quuxuum.org/rajens_list/shiprevs.html#TrumpeterNC

I see that the NC suffers from the same mold mis-alignment on the splinter shields that the Essex kits do. Those are darn difficult to fix, too; you have to sand them smooth, and all the while carefully watching that you don't sand the vertical angles out of alignment. I've been doing that sanding and replacing any vertical ribbing detail for the past 3 days on my Essex, and that's only for one bridge level and the port 5" galleries. Fixable, but tedious work; it almost seems that cutting off all splinter shields and replacing with strip styrene would be quicker and yield a better result.

I really love the Trumpeter subject matter and will continue to buy their kits that are 'must have' for me, but MAN, do I wish they'd sort out these molding issues. Their learning curve is starting to stretch out into a line.

-Devin

[Ron Smith]

OK the level 01 will be carefully cut (horizontally) by drilling a series of adjacent holes, than sanded down to correct height and reglued.
I guess Tracy figured out what Trumpeter did wrong.

I will need to assume some medication, before, tough.
I already did to sand down the deck joint and rescribe it.
Just joking of course.

I'm not sure trying to fix the 01 level height problem is worth the effort unless you're doing a completely new deck like Frank did on his.

To Ron, first let me say how happy I am that an expert like you, offers some help.
I already read all the excellent research you did on the shipcamouflage site and look forward to reading your article too.
About gun thickness, what about the main guns ?
Trumpeter moulded them the thickest, Lion Roar ones are thinner, Tamiya plastic ones thinner yet.
I know I should get some good source or Steve's barrells but my budget is somewhat costrained...

You're welcome and tahnks for the compliment. The Trumpeter barrels are junk and not worth trying to fix without a lathe. Lion Roar's barrels are accurate except for one little spot.....where it steps down the second time there is a steep taper to the next diameter, there is a taper there on the real thing but LR made it about 4 times longer than it should be, it should be more of a step. If you decide to get the Yankee Modelworks turret set it comes with accurate white metal barrels and resin blast bags. The YMW set also has resin 5" turrets (note NC did not have blast bags on her 5" guns).

BTW any opinion on the need to buy some more P/E to complement Lion Roar sets.
I usually prefer more established products (Loren Perry's usually comes first in my list) but in this case the barrel deal was to good to pass on.

That all depends on which fit you intend to do her in. If you're doing her after the Sept. 1944 refit the only thing the Lion Roar set lacks is hawse pipe gratings, although to fix the broadside secondary director tower doors you'll need a couple watertight doors, I used some from my parts box. Any earlier than Sept. 1944 and you have varying levels of surgery to perform. If you want to backdate her to early 1943 the Yankee set is nice but lacks SG radars and funnel catwalks (I'd have to look to see if you need the SG that early). The WEM set will allow you to backdate her to her military trials of August 22-31, 1941.

From an expense point of view if you're doing the last fit I'd scratchbuild the hawse pipe grates and just use the LR PE, get the YMW turret set and get the L'Arsenal 20mm's with the solid resin pedestals (most if not all her 20's had the older conical pedestal not the open tripod type) and a set of white metal anchors for US BB's from Trident Hobbies. Use the white metal barrels on the YMW 5" & 16" turrets and save the LR barrels for another project. Use a piece of 5/16" diameter aluminum tube to make the 40mm director tub that should be on the #3 main turret, I think there's a spare director in the kit, if not raid your parts box. On mine I'm also using L'Arsenal 40mm's but you can use the LR PE to dress the kit guns up and they'll look just fine.

[Ron Smith]

I see that the NC suffers from the same mold mis-alignment on the splinter shields that the Essex kits do. Those are darn difficult to fix, too; you have to sand them smooth, and all the while carefully watching that you don't sand the vertical angles out of alignment. I've been doing that sanding and replacing any vertical ribbing detail for the past 3 days on my Essex, and that's only for one bridge level and the port 5" galleries. Fixable, but tedious work; it almost seems that cutting off all splinter shields and replacing with strip styrene would be quicker and yield a better result.

I really love the Trumpeter subject matter and will continue to buy their kits that are 'must have' for me, but MAN, do I wish they'd sort out these molding issues. Their learning curve is starting to stretch out into a line.

-Devin

The problem is all on the inner face of those shields but some judicious chisel work and a very fine file will fix it. I considered replacing all the shields with strip styrene since they're all too short but got so irritated with stupid mistakes in engineering of the kit I didn't on this build. When I do the August 1941 version and absolutely have to do major surgery I might replace them all.

[Luca Bevilacqua]

Hi Ron, hi Tracy, hi all.

To Ron, first of all many thanks for all the help (info and advice) you offered and for the in box review you linked to, which is absolutely excellent (very comprehensive).

I did not check the forum since I had a few days off work, but in the meantime I did perform the surgery on the 01 level height.
Overall it was easy enough and I am quite pleased with the result.
Let me share the procedure in case someone wants to venture along the same path.
I realised the height error when I had all the assembly already in place, and in retrospect this fact helped the correction procedure.

I chose to drill holes at the same level where the kit overlay bulkheads have portholes.
That level is just below the edge of the plastic on top, which helps as a reference.
I marked a level line there, by sliding along a pencil secured to a suitably thick base.
Hence my line run trough the centres of the existing portholes.
I marked the existing portholes’ position (along the bulkhead that is) before drilling anymore holes to be able to distinguish them and redrill at a lower height later, (I presume Trumpeter got their position right so since your Ron’s review does not mention such an additional error).
I then drilled a series of 1 mm. holes all along the line.
I then cut through them with a sharpened large blade. Easy enough.

Sanding absolutely flat (and hence matching) both pieces was more difficult but still manageable.
On the upper part you I had the original deck as a flat reference, even tough I chose to thin it down a bit, so that the new horizontal joint will be positioned as high as possible (and hence be less noticeable on the recessed part of bulkheads).
To sand flat the vertical bulkheads’ profile I made a suitable, very rigid and flat sanding block by CAing 150 grit sandpaper on a piece of scrap plexyglass, then I checked for uniform height often while sanding with regular large movements.
Puttying/sanding the seam was easier on outer walls.
Recessed portions of my assembly suffered for a “Revell like” horizontal joint.
My way of reducing that problem were:
 getting the joint as high as possible (close to the ceiling, where the junction does not look incongrous),
 "acetone puttying" (I simply put a fair amount of Tamiya putty on a earstick, rub the putty on the seam to fill any gap, then grab a few more earsticks soaked in acetone and wipe out any excess).

I still have to prime but I hope the tricks made for a decent result.
BB55 with the corrected height at level 01, now looks like a sleek warship and not a “wartime painted” luxury cruising ship (like she used to).

Reinvigorated by the deck 01 success I set about to correct the “too agile” stacks.
Drilling larger exhaust holes was easy.
Then I wrapped the main flanks of the funnels on .25 mm rectangular pieces of styrene, to fatten them up as much as I practically could.
I put 2 x .25 mm styrene layers in place (around the whole stack), sanded their joints, sanded (round contour of course) the added length as much as I practically could (if one sands too much the added sheets break up).

I have to say I am NOT satisfied with the partial results.
Lots of work still needs to be done on upper and lower portions of the funnels for a result that probably will never be perfect.
It would be wiser to buy some good resin, if available
Do you know if YMW would be willing to sell just the 2 stacks ?
I rather invest on them then on the main turrets replacements.

Altough I agree that the plastic pieces are major PITA, since I always am on a constrained budget, I tried to correct the main turrets upper seams I think I made it with enough plenty of time/patience) for extra careful sanding/puttying.
I almost got away with it, with the help of a little trick.
If some putty gets unwanted on to interesting details (like the bands on the turret roof) and if acetone does not get rid of it completely (it sometimes happens around details), just put a little bit of gel type CA debonder on top and let it act for a while.
The gel debonder brand I buy in Italy dissolves Tamiya putty completely (with the usual acetone soaked earsticks the whole compound can be get rid of), while doing no arm at the plastic details.
I think they should all work this way but please do experiment on scrap pieces first.

I am very interested in the corrections Devin made.
In fact I think I fixed the same error with a somewhat different procedure on my CV13 & CV 14 builds.
If I got the problem correctly building OOB the tubs would make for a noticeable step up from the deck level they sit on.
I figured the easiest way to reduce this problem would be to sand the plastic pieces from below.
Unfortunately I suspect this will leave the tube walls too short, while sanding from above would have carved away some extra (needed) height.

What was the correct height for the 40 mm tubs ?

I read Ron’s review about the fact that the 20 mm tubs are a 20 % too short.
I thought of a way of fixing the 20 mm tubs (gluing on a thin sheet of styrene - to the upper side not to ruin the positioning pins - then trim away the excess styrene).
But hiding the seam on such a delicate assembly might be too hard for my sanding/puttying skills, unless they had some sort of artifact near the top (or near the bottom, if necessary one could get away with sanding the pins too, if one marks the correct position on the deck first).

Ron please where could I get a picture that shows where the 40 mm director was on the aft turret ?

Ciao and many thanks to Ron and all

Yours
Luca

[Ron Smith]

Hi Ron, hi Tracy, hi all.

To Ron, first of all many thanks for all the help (info and advice) you offered and for the in box review you linked to, which is absolutely excellent (very comprehensive).

Thanks, that's actually a build review, you don't find most of the problems until you start gluing things together.

(I presume Trumpeter got their position right so since your Ron’s review does not mention such an additional error).

If they're not perfect they're close enough. I wasn't going to try taking calipers to photos.

 "acetone puttying" (I simply put a fair amount of Tamiya putty on a earstick, rub the putty on the seam to fill any gap, then grab a few more earsticks soaked in acetone and wipe out any excess).

There's an easier way, paint in some White Out (correction fluid) then use Q-tips with denatured alcohol to "sand" it. Also works with Mr. Surfacer. Tamiya putty, if it's the sliver/grey stuff, will "sand" using Q-tips and Mr. Color thinner from Gunze. Acetone can attack the plastic so I prefer either of the milder solvents.

Reinvigorated by the deck 01 success I set about to correct the “too agile” stacks.
Drilling larger exhaust holes was easy.
Then I wrapped the main flanks of the funnels on .25 mm rectangular pieces of styrene, to fatten them up as much as I practically could.
I put 2 x .25 mm styrene layers in place (around the whole stack), sanded their joints, sanded (round contour of course) the added length as much as I practically could (if one sands too much the added sheets break up).

I have to say I am NOT satisfied with the partial results.
Lots of work still needs to be done on upper and lower portions of the funnels for a result that probably will never be perfect.
It would be wiser to buy some good resin, if available
Do you know if YMW would be willing to sell just the 2 stacks ?

Since I have the resin stacks you mention in the Classic Warships kit I compared them with Trumpeter's stacks. I don't think you can modify Trumpeter's and get a good result with any reasonable level of effort, you'd spend your time better scratchbuilding new stacks. I also worked with microfilm prints of some of the original plans and photos to determine how wrong Trumpeter got them. Contact Chris Decker at http://www.tridenthobies.com and see if they'll run you up a set of stacks. Be forewarned, if you do that you'll have some serious work to redo the bases they sit on to make them look right.

What was the correct height for the 40 mm tubs ?

I read Ron’s review about the fact that the 20 mm tubs are a 20 % too short.
I thought of a way of fixing the 20 mm tubs (gluing on a thin sheet of styrene - to the upper side not to ruin the positioning pins - then trim away the excess styrene).

I can't say if the Essex carriers have correct tub heights but from Hornet and North Carolina I would bet they're too short. Most of the problem seems to be Trumpeter usually gets it almost right *if* the tub hangs in open air, where the "too short" comes into play on those tubs is the inside, the floor is too thick and makes the gun/director sit too high but from the outside it look fine as long as there isn't a gun mounted. The root cause is mold engineering and overly thick floors. On BB-55 however the circular 40mm tubs are all just too short no matter how you look at them, since they're plain you could just cut away the molded walls and glue strip styrene in place. from the outside of the tubs .015" x .125" is the closest stock size to correct but you'll still have a problem with over thick floors. The 20mm splinter shields are too low too and they lack bracing.

Ron please where could I get a picture that shows where the 40 mm director was on the aft turret ?

Easier to just tell you here. Draw a line down the center of the turret fore and aft, then a line centered between the first and second row of rivets (should be about where the small sight hoods are on the turret sides). Cut a piece of 5/16" diameter tubing (thin the inner wall if it's too thick) and make it .125" high. Glue in place centered on the intersection of your two lines. In Shoker's book you can barely see it on page 2, it shows on the lower drawing page 49 and most of the profiles for camouflage (it and the 40mm tub should not be shown on the profiles except for dazzle, Ms22 and the postwar grey).

[Luca Bevilacqua]

Hi Ron,
thanks for the many tips.

I would be tempted to flood you with zillions of BB55 questions but I will refrain from doing so.
I'll buy the photo CD first, study it carefully and steal your time only when I just can't make it.

Unfortunately I find many difficulties in getting some modelling materials in Italy.
The products you mentioned are just some of the ones I would love to get.
However in my experience acetone (at least the diluted formula my wife uses for her fingers does not attack plastic - unless I forget the part in a acetone bath long enough ) so I get away with it and CA debonder (that gel type just saved my modelling life).

I am also planning a Bismarck build.
I would like to replace the deck there as Frank did for the BB55.

The Tamiya deck planking for her just stinks.
However I can not seem to be able to find sheets with in scale grooving.
Do you happen to know where from Frank got the sheets for his BB55 ?
Or may be he scribed them himself ?

Ciao
Luca

[Ron Smith]

Hi Ron,
thanks for the many tips.

You're welcome.

I would be tempted to flood you with zillions of BB55 questions but I will refrain from doing so.
I'll buy the photo CD first, study it carefully and steal your time only when I just can't make it.

Actually I won't be doing a photo CD for at least a year since Steve Wiper's already doing a book. Also keep in mind I can point out what's wrong on the kit and suggest fixes but on my model I might just leave it as is since I might consider it not worth the effort to fix. As often as not I'd rather build a resin kit since they usually don't have these kinds of stupid mistakes.

Unfortunately I find many difficulties in getting some modelling materials in Italy.
The products you mentioned are just some of the ones I would love to get.
However in my experience acetone (at least the diluted formula my wife uses for her fingers does not attack plastic - unless I forget the part in a acetone bath long enough ) so I get away with it and CA debonder (that gel type just saved my modelling life).

We call that "nail polish remover' in the US. When I see acetone I assume pure acetone, which I use to clean lacquer primer from my airbrush.

I am also planning a Bismarck build.
I would like to replace the deck there as Frank did for the BB55.

The Tamiya deck planking for her just stinks.
However I can not seem to be able to find sheets with in scale grooving.
Do you happen to know where from Frank got the sheets for his BB55 ?
Or may be he scribed them himself ?

I think he mentioned in the text he used prescribed Evergreen styrene. I know you can order it online. At some point I'll be seriously backdating a BB-55 kit to 1941 or 1942 and will have to replace the deck and I decdied that the smallest groove spacing would be the most correct from stock sheets. I think it was .020" spacing.

[guest]

Hi all

I have the 1/350 Classic warships North Carolina BB, but am confused on the out fit off AA during the 1942.

I want to build the kit as the Washington in Mod 12 camo during 1942. The instructions say that she carried 4 x 1.1" quads in August 1941, then they were removed until September 1942 when she received 6 x 1.1" quads?

Is this true or am i reading the instructions wrong?

In addition, the instructions say she mounted 1 x 1.1 quad at the stern after 15 august 1942. Seems strange that she would not mount 2 on the stern, one on port and one on starboard, given that she carried 6 x 1.1" quads after sept 42'

Can anyone help on the accuracy of the AA outfit during 1942, when she served in the Atlantic? As i said I want to depict the Washington when she wore MS12 mod and was hoping that during this time she also carried 1.1" quads, but going by the instructions with the kit, this may not be possible.

Thanks
Bruce

[Ron Smith]

In addition, the instructions say she mounted 1 x 1.1 quad at the stern after 15 august 1942. Seems strange that she would not mount 2 on the stern, one on port and one on starboard, given that she carried 6 x 1.1" quads after sept 42'

Can anyone help on the accuracy of the AA outfit during 1942, when she served in the Atlantic? As i said I want to depict the Washington when she wore MS12 mod and was hoping that during this time she also carried 1.1" quads, but going by the instructions with the kit, this may not be possible.

She has the 1.1's in the standard four places on the superstructure. The 5th and 6th are both starboard side, one in front of the hawse pipe and one behind the catapult. Be aware for a short period around her visit to Scapa Flow and King George VI's visit to her she holystoned the paint from her teak decks. All six 1.1's are in place at Scapa Flow as well. Also you should know her decks are very light even when painted, closer in tone to the ocean grey than the blue on her hull.

Neither the bow or stern 1.1 tubs hangs over the hull side, they sit fully on the deck.