The Ship Model Forum

Thanks Larry, if it hadn't been for reading your build thread, I'd likely have given up on trying it.

On to something simpler tonight, the catapults

An hours work so far has seen a catapult progress to this stage:

And a bit more:



In the photo below, it turns out I'd got my folds the wrong way round and the railing at the bottom left should be open on the inside, not to worry, in the overall scheme of things it'll be pretty hard to spot and trying to fix it was more likely to break the PE...

Hank Strubb' modeled his NJ well postwar so donated those same kit and PE catapults for my Alaska. Fortunately they fell within my poor PE skills. Looks nice so far!

Cheers: Tom

Almost there with the first of the catapults, just the buffers at the front to do...





John

Now on to one of the most fiddly parts of this build, adding the round strip to the top of the lip that I added to the hull. I am quite pleased with how well the added lip has blended with the hull sides, the join is, for the most part, almost impossible to see. First up, I've added a strip of masking tape to the back on the lip, no mean feat in itself when the lip is on .75mm high which enables me to position and hold the strip in place while keeping hands free. Once I'm happy that is is up against the existing strip, I'll hold a steel rule being the tape and then apply the cement...

More work needed on getting rid of some of glue that oozed out when adding the plates to the hull sides.



and with a quick coat of primer:



It is a little overscale but make a big difference to the look of the hull sides...

Glad that you have pulled this off. As you state, it does make a big difference in the appearance of the hull. I attached mine on my 1:192 Missouri with the deck already on, which I think made things much easier. Using thin music wire, rather than flexible styrene (except for the very stern) made only very occasional taping necessary as the wire wanted to follow the smooth curves of the hull and needed little coaxing. No matter which technique suited your working methods and materials (no such styrene available within 40 miles here) it's always good to go the little extra!

Regards: Tom

Thanks Tom.

I had considered piano wire but that would have involved super glue and I figured there would be a much bigger chance of making a mess over using liquid cement on the styrene.

One thing I have noticed is that, due to the fairly limited glue surfaces, the whole thing is rather fragile - the vertical strip did part company with the hull at one point while I was gluing the rod in place.

John

After almost a year away from the Iowa, I've made a start again. Before she got put away last year, I did get the lip fitted all the way round the hull so it was ready for paint.

So, this week, the Measure 32 camo has been going on. As the eventual aim is for the model to go in to a water base, I didn't want a 'museum model' paint finish so I didn't go for complete coverage with the light grey to try and impart some texture to the hull as I've not attempted to do the oil canning. The camo is based on that shown in the Anatomy of the Ship book and looks a little odd at the waterline at the minute as I've left the masking on for the boot topping while I do a bit of touch up on the lower hull.

I have some photos that Roger Torgensen kindly sent me that show the Iowa in this camo scheme at, I believe, Ulithi which shows the hull paintwork in a shocking state that I may try and replicate...

Some won't like it but this was never meant to be an exact replica of a Iowa at a specific time as I like the camo pattern but much prefer the look of the plain wooden decks rather than those with the blue stain which the ship should, of course, have with this camo scheme.





John

Jinkies! That's a big boat. I think she looks good. As you those who may not "like" what you are doing...the heck with them. It's your model. Build it how you want to.

_________________
Martin

"Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." John Wayne

Ship Model Gallery

Thanks Martin.

A couple of touch ups done and she's unmasked:



Next up, get the deck details painted then it's on to the first wooden deck pieces.

I agree that I like the bare wood decks better, it's a similar bling to using brass props. Some 60 years ago I built a 1:192 model of Missouri, (wood) which some 30 years ago I began a reconstruction to it's current appearance and to a higher standard. Fortunately the decks are currently exposed teak. I had mistakenly thought that this would be a simpler model than the WWII version. Boy was I wrong! I did hand lay the decking, a long involved process, but I liked it.

Hank Strub did a very nice version of the kit to construct New Jersey when he served aboard during Vietnam. He undertook the massive correction of the hull fore and aft. The fat ass of the kit is quite noticeable and unfortunate as one involve considerable time and treasure in it's construction. The bow area is somewhat less bad.

My 1:192 Alaska has a scribed plastic deck, which of course imitates the deck grey stain. I did not attempt the dazzle camo scheme she wore early in her career, as you have, I'm always impressed with such skilled painters! Not one of my skill sets.

A long term project but certainly you will achieve a striking model! Keep up the good work.

Best regards: Tom

Thanks Tom, I've seen Hank's build and I'm aware that the hull lines aren't the best but I decided I can live with it as it is.

Indeed, I fully understand, Hank hemmed and hawed forever on that, it's enough of a side project it might be easier to build a new hull, which defeats the purpose of the kit. The Iowa's actually have very little hull volume aft despite the huge fantail deck. I've wondered if this volume was purposely added in the kit for better flotation for those wanting to go the RC route. Certainly the kit is large enough for this to be a practical matter. For wartime depiction the amount of small AA is daunting. I had originally populated my Alaska with the Bofors and Orlikons from the Trumpy kit, generously donated by Hank, but after successfully printing Bofor quads and Orlikons for my APA, I tried them in 1:192 and I really like them. I thought they might not print at that scale, but they came out well. I also replaced the Model Monkey 5" mounts, my handmade MK 37 directors and just about every small item with printed parts. Today I am replacing all the Carley floats with items reduced in scale from my 1:120 Poseidon. Replaced the SG radars (2) yesterday. I sent Larry a couple of stokes litters for his ship, with all the substance of a dried mosquito.

Enjoy you major project!

Best regards: Tom

Thanks again Tom.

I've got a couple of samples of 3D printed quad 40mm and single 20m guns which I'm going to compare to the kit/Pontos versions before committing to one or the other. The printed ones would, clearly be faster and if they offer 95% of the detail I may well be tempted, the chances of me putting together 50+ 20mm with the Pontos set without making a mistake are fairly slim.

It is certainly a major project and I'm hoping I can now build up some momentum as it is almost 6 years since I glued the hull together.

Talking of major projects, I am very seriously tempted by the new 1/200 Yamato but with both the 1/200 Hood (Pontos set already bought) and 1/200 Hornet in the stash, it might be better if I actually get something finished first

I think it took me the better part of a month to assemble all the 20 mm's for Alaska, which were a few less than an Iowa. I liked the one piece 20 mm's better as they didn't require assembly and also didn't have a tendency to disassemble themselves. maybe I just wasn't very good at it! Yes, not having more than several ongoing unfinished projects would be a plus!

Cheers: Tom

Unfortunately not, the tub pretty much follows the curve of the hull, I'm guessing that it's because it is the same part as in the Missouri kit.



John

It does, so it appears Trumpeter have made a tub that is suitable for neither of the two ships they do...

Johndon,
The IOWA (and WISCONSIN) bow enclosures are different than those of NEW JERSEY & MISSIOUI. This bulwarks has never been removed on either of those two ships. The one you've got on your model is incorrect, so I would recommend removing it and replace it with a scratchbuilt affair. Here are a couple photos of what it should look like:



And here is a plan view of what you will need to construct:

Sorry, I don't have a scale on this - you'll need to print out, determine how much to reduce it to 1:200 scale and once you've done that, you'll have a template to use to make your parts. As a draftsman/designer I would probably take a different route, but that's the simplest way to accomplish the task.

I hope this helps you out!

Hank

ps - when I was building my NEW JERSEY from the MISSOURI kit, I found the hull was totally wack - and rebuilt the last 19" of the after hull as well as built up the bulbous bow about 6" - 8" in length because it wasn't correct. Trumpeter is notorious for screwing up the hulls on their 1:200 kits. I don't know about any of the others as I have no interest in buying any of them!

_________________
HMS III
Mocksville, NC
BB62 vet 68-69

Builder's yard:
USS STODDARD (DD-566) 66-68 1:144, Various Lg Scale FC Directors
Finished:
USS NEW JERSEY (BB-62) 67-69 1:200
USN Sloop/Ship PEACOCK (1813) 1:48
ROYAL CAROLINE (1748) 1:47
AVS (1768) 1:48

Hank, thank you very much for that, very informative.

I think, like the hull, I'll just chalk this up to another thing I'll have to live with this time, I'm guessing from your draughtsman comment, you'd go the CAD and 3D printing route to get a correctly shaped tub?

One thing I'd love to do is a 1/200 1980s New Jersey but having seen what it took for you to get a Vietnam NJ, I'm under no illusions as to how much work that would take!

John