Calling all South Dakota-class (BB-57) fans!

Dave Hill · Post by **Dave Hill** » Wed Nov 07, 2007 11:29 am

Awsome PE work...Great job

JPH · Post by **JPH** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 7:03 am

Hmmmmm, nothing wrong with that. Looks fantastic mate, well done.

I notice in the background of some pics you are also building a North Carolina/Washington. Looking forward to seeing some pics of that onewhen it is further along.

rtheriaque · Post by **rtheriaque** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 8:32 am

Actually... That's a Trumpy 350 DE I was doing some paint tests on

bb-56 · Post by **bb-56** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 6:50 pm

Very nice BB-59, having just visited it in October I think the loaders are in the correct spot and the asymmetric crane/20mm setup looks right too. Good research and build!

rtheriaque · Post by **rtheriaque** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:21 pm

Many thanks!

I weathered it after these pics, but haven't taken anything new. She's sitting at work on my desk with a Trumpy DE (the same one I was doing tests with) and a Tamiya/Trumpy DD in a display case.

If I'm not mistaken, a BB would rarely (if ever) be seen with a DE, but I've had a soft spot for DEs since reading "Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors." I don't believe a sister of the England was involved in the Battle off Samar, but it's the thought that counts, I suppose.

I am a tooling engineer (mold designer) for an injection molding company. People get a kick out of seeing a fully built-up model in the office. In America, simple open/close molds (the family to which most model kits belong) are something of a rarity. For the most part, only "technical" molding is left here. Dragon is introducing molds with some action (which they're advertising as "slide molding"), which is interesting (and surprising) to see. I suppose if slides are being used, it's only a matter of time until hot manifolds trickle down, which might eliminate sprues entirely from larger parts (hulls, decks, etc). The tolerances that could be held would eliminate the need for for putty!

In my dreams...

pbudzik · Post by **pbudzik** » Sun Dec 16, 2007 2:44 pm

Does anyone have any information on Massachusetts' AA arrangement in the early part of '44 prior to July refit.

Navy2000 · Post by **Navy2000** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 7:36 pm

Does anyone have the camo layout for BB 60 in 42' showing her in a measure 12 modified scheme, or is this a freehand scheme that can not be found in order to lay it out on my model.

Duane

Tracy White · Post by **Tracy White** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 7:42 pm

It's not from an official design sheet, if that's what you mean. I don't know if anyone sells pure 1/350th or 1/700th drawings you could lay it over, but Ron Smith's got some pictures you can purchase that might be of help.

bb56 · Post by **bb56** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:42 am

pbudzik wrote:Does anyone have any information on Massachusetts' AA arrangement in the early part of '44 prior to July refit.

This fellow has the quantities of aa by year, but you may need photos to finalize locations.

http://polyticks.com/bbma/quad40s.htm

Tracy White · Post by **Tracy White** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 11:43 am

Did she have a thunderbolt too? That's something to consider....

JPH · Post by **JPH** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:10 am

bb56 wrote:
pbudzik wrote:Does anyone have any information on Massachusetts' AA arrangement in the early part of '44 prior to July refit.
This fellow has the quantities of aa by year, but you may need photos to finalize locations.

http://polyticks.com/bbma/quad40s.htm

Now this is a website I didn't know existed. Thanks for posting.

Dave Hill · Post by **Dave Hill** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 9:46 am

So how are all the SoDak builds going???...any "in-progress" photos to share???

russclark · Post by **russclark** » Tue Dec 25, 2007 5:53 pm

test pic

[/img]

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Dec 25, 2007 5:58 pm

pic[img][img]http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/9449/im000239zd5.jpg[/img][/img]

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Dec 25, 2007 6:01 pm

Anonymous wrote:pic[img][img]http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/9449/im000239zd5.jpg[/img][/img]

a couple of pics ,seemed to down load ok

Post by **ModelMonkey** » Tue Dec 25, 2007 6:38 pm

pbudzik · Post by **pbudzik** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:51 pm

I'm about in the same place as I am with the Washington. The hull on this kit is a terrible fit.

The hull bottom was straightened with a piece of hardwood plywood. All the straps had to be cut out to get the top and bottom half to fit.

The fore and aft sections of the deck along with a .060" sheet were cemented to place.

New Evergreen "N" scale siding was used for the deck. I think the kit deck looks overdone and I was going to be changing some of the deck arrangement as I am doing the Massachusetts during the first part of '44.

Before trimming the excess material, I ran a little Zap-Gap around the joint.

The excess material is trimmed away.

I think this is the fastest way to clean up the deck, eliminate joints, and get better looking planking. It's a lot faster that filling holes or gaps.

The first level of the superstructure has been reinforced with aluminum tubing and the cast deck portion removed.

Paul

Dave Hill · Post by **Dave Hill** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 4:25 am

pbudzik wrote:I'm about in the same place as I am with the Washington. The hull on this kit is a terrible fit.

Paul

What scale are you working with?

The fit of the hull on my 1/350 Mass. was horrible!...it took days of sanding,filling and more sanding to get it right!...My 1/350 North Carolina only had three (3) spots on the entire hull that needed work!!!!!!!!!!

pbudzik · Post by **pbudzik** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 12:19 pm

Dave,

I'm doing the 1/350. I totally agree on the hull. When I first test fit the hull halves together, I thought I had a bad molding. I took it back to the shop and we looked at another kit and it was just as bad so I went home and fixed it. Once I cut out all the straps and the webbing in the bow area it became much easier to handle (the bow web was the worst part of the problem). I taped it all up (see photo) and got it to line up pretty well before cementing. You really have to spread the hull to get the deck in, but it finally straightens out the hull.

Actually, my North Carolina was a bigger problem because the bottom hull portion was warped and wasn't even close to being flat. I had two kits and it was the same in both. Once I got the bottom flat. the upper hull went on OK, but I still had to cut out the straps.

I usually don't like to complain about kits. I'm used to nursing along old Monogram and Revell a/c kits or just building it myself. But so far, I'm not very impressed with these Trumpeter kits. I could excuse it if they where half the price. And the bad part about it is, I know the engineering and execution could be done better. The good side about these kits (especially when they released the Essex) is that it got me into steel ships.

Paul

Dave Hill · Post by **Dave Hill** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 1:35 am

The bow web on my kit wasn't a problem...my problem was the bottom hull half...it was 2mm to narrow at the bow and I had to cut a wedge shaped piece of .040 sheet stock and cement it into the lower hull half to sread it out just enough to get the hull halfs to line up.

I agree the engineering could have been better on these kits!!!...but in my opinion Trumpy's Massachusetts is a much better kit so far...sure the hull was a nightmare, but everything else has been great...the deck-to-hull fit was suprisingly precise and needed NO filling and only minor sanding!...I'm working on the superstructure now and the fit is pretty good and is going smoothly...when I get my hands on a digital camera I'll post some photos of what's done so far.

The Ship Model Forum

Calling all South Dakota-class (BB-57) fans!

Which were the best 1930's pre-war battleships built?

1/192 mass

one more

Re: one more