The Ship Model Forum

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.

_________________
Building 1/200 Nichi.'45
viewtopic.php?f=59&t=152105

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 real skill to pull off well however!

I found out the hard way on my previous build log that Bismarck lovers are a bit... sensitive but let me set the record straight. Bismarck was a damn sexy ship

She ( and I DO mean SHE... I'll be damned if I let the Nazis change hundreds of years of Nautical Tradition! ) 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!

_________________
-Jason Channell

Current Project: 1/200 Bismarck

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:




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

Gaston

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!

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

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.

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.

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 reduces the difference with the drawing):





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

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.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

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. )

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

_________________
-Jason Channell

Current Project: 1/200 Bismarck

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

_________________
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

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.

_________________
-Jason Channell

Current Project: 1/200 Bismarck