1:192 USS Missouri modern configuration
Moderators: MartinJQuinn, JIM BAUMANN, HMAS, Tiny69, Dave Wooley
- Luky
- Posts: 221
- Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:27 pm
- Location: Guerneville,CA
1:192 USS Missouri modern configuration
I will be starting actual building this week. Monday Jan, 7th,2013
It will be a display model.
I have my plans from Floating Drydock and several books.
I have built two previous Missouri's
My last version was 1:175 scale.
I will post progress.
Here is a link to previous models.
http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... -main.html
It will be a display model.
I have my plans from Floating Drydock and several books.
I have built two previous Missouri's
My last version was 1:175 scale.
I will post progress.
Here is a link to previous models.
http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... -main.html
Went to get coffee.
- Luky
- Posts: 221
- Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:27 pm
- Location: Guerneville,CA
Re: 1:192 USS Missouri modern configuration
Yes...Boring right???
Well check out some of my models.
http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... index.html
Well check out some of my models.
http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... index.html
Last edited by Luky on Tue Mar 26, 2013 7:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Went to get coffee.
- Dave Wooley
- Posts: 4131
- Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 10:18 am
- Location: Liverpool
Re: 1:192 USS Missouri modern configuration
hello Lucky best of luck with your build of the Missouri I'll be watching for up dates
Dave Wooley
Dave Wooley
- Luky
- Posts: 221
- Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:27 pm
- Location: Guerneville,CA
Re: 1:192 USS Missouri modern configuration
Thanks Dave. I hope to make this my best model with all ofDave Wooley wrote:hello Lucky best of luck with your build of the Missouri I'll be watching for up dates![]()
![]()
![]()
Dave Wooley
the great photos available now of the USS Missouri on this site.
Went to get coffee.
- Luky
- Posts: 221
- Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:27 pm
- Location: Guerneville,CA
Re: 1:192 USS Missouri modern configuration
Well I already have a question for the experts.
I recently bought a set of plans and have a question about the measurements page.
(Floating Drydock TFW)
The list of molded heights and bridges & elevated platforms has a note at the bottom that says..
"molded base line of ship is 2" above bottom of keel."
When building my model do I need to take that into consideration
on this 1/16 scale model of the 1990 USS Missouri?
Was a zinc sticking down on the bottom of the hull? LOL..lol
Otherwise do I need to add 2" ( scale measurement) to all of
the heights? Or .010 thousandths of an inch.
I recently bought a set of plans and have a question about the measurements page.
(Floating Drydock TFW)
The list of molded heights and bridges & elevated platforms has a note at the bottom that says..
"molded base line of ship is 2" above bottom of keel."
When building my model do I need to take that into consideration
on this 1/16 scale model of the 1990 USS Missouri?
Was a zinc sticking down on the bottom of the hull? LOL..lol
Otherwise do I need to add 2" ( scale measurement) to all of
the heights? Or .010 thousandths of an inch.
Went to get coffee.
- rtwpsom2
- Posts: 1438
- Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 10:15 pm
- Location: State of Denial
Re: 1:192 USS Missouri modern configuration
The mold lines are actually the lines to the inside of the steel plating, not the outside. At 192nd the difference would be negligible so I would ignore it. That kind of stuff is usually important to CAD guys, but no modeler in his right mind has ever worried about it.
- DrPR
- Posts: 1689
- Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 12:01 am
- Location: Corvallis, Oregon, USA
- Contact:
Re: 1:192 USS Missouri modern configuration
Luky,
Because elevations are referenced to the Base Line the 2" offset doesn't matter for the superstructure and upper hull. The relative distances between these elevations is independent of the absolute distance above the base line. The only place you will see some "error" is in the curvature of the bottom half of the hull.
0.010" is about the thickness of three sheets of notebook paper, and the paint on the hull will be a significant part of that thickness. So it really isn't worth worrying about.
This is especially true if you are working from whole ship plan view drawings because these often aren't very accurate. The line thicknesses in these drawings often exceed 0.010" and that can introduce 2" to 3" errors at 1:192. The original blueprint whole ship drawings are just "sketches" that were produced to show the relative positions of parts of the ship, and they often do not contain all of the modifications that were made during construction.
****
For what it is worth, the thickness of keel plates normally varied from thinest at bow and stern and thicker under the engineering spaces. But since all of the keel plates rest on the same structure during construction the bottom of the keel is flat. This means the inside of the plating is not a constant level.
As Rob said, the molded lines are normally to the inside of the hull plating. But because the keel plates vary in thickness they just pick the top of one of the plate thicknesses midships for the Base Line.
If you were modeling at 1:96, 1:72 or larger you would want to take all of this into account to make an accurate hull. But at smaller scales where the differences are less than the thickness of the paint there is no point in worrying about it.
Phil
Because elevations are referenced to the Base Line the 2" offset doesn't matter for the superstructure and upper hull. The relative distances between these elevations is independent of the absolute distance above the base line. The only place you will see some "error" is in the curvature of the bottom half of the hull.
0.010" is about the thickness of three sheets of notebook paper, and the paint on the hull will be a significant part of that thickness. So it really isn't worth worrying about.
This is especially true if you are working from whole ship plan view drawings because these often aren't very accurate. The line thicknesses in these drawings often exceed 0.010" and that can introduce 2" to 3" errors at 1:192. The original blueprint whole ship drawings are just "sketches" that were produced to show the relative positions of parts of the ship, and they often do not contain all of the modifications that were made during construction.
****
For what it is worth, the thickness of keel plates normally varied from thinest at bow and stern and thicker under the engineering spaces. But since all of the keel plates rest on the same structure during construction the bottom of the keel is flat. This means the inside of the plating is not a constant level.
As Rob said, the molded lines are normally to the inside of the hull plating. But because the keel plates vary in thickness they just pick the top of one of the plate thicknesses midships for the Base Line.
If you were modeling at 1:96, 1:72 or larger you would want to take all of this into account to make an accurate hull. But at smaller scales where the differences are less than the thickness of the paint there is no point in worrying about it.
Phil
A collision at sea will ruin your entire day. Aristotle
- Luky
- Posts: 221
- Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:27 pm
- Location: Guerneville,CA
Re: 1:192 USS Missouri modern configuration
Thanks for the detailed replies!
I found out a sheet of notebook paper is .006-.007 thousandths.
I bought drawings that were supposed to be 1:192 but they are off.
The top view of the hull (LOA) was supposed to be 55-1/2" and is 57".
So I have to solve that problem. Or else build the model to 1:191 scale,
but then the guns and other parts would not be correct.
Got to get the drawing closer to start with.
I found out a sheet of notebook paper is .006-.007 thousandths.
I bought drawings that were supposed to be 1:192 but they are off.
The top view of the hull (LOA) was supposed to be 55-1/2" and is 57".
So I have to solve that problem. Or else build the model to 1:191 scale,
but then the guns and other parts would not be correct.
Got to get the drawing closer to start with.
Went to get coffee.
- Luky
- Posts: 221
- Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:27 pm
- Location: Guerneville,CA
Re: 1:192 USS Missouri modern configuration
I started building the hull Scale 1:191
LOA 57 inches
This is my 3rd Missouri this size.
My first photo:
Pine bread and butter hull with poplar top slab 1/4 inch.
It was so cold today that when I squeezed the bottle of glue the container cracked.
After getting this all glued together I will start marking out the station lines.
Cutting out the fat.
The Japanese saw would not do it ,the sawzall would not do it, so I went outside
and used a vice and a skill saw and finished it with a carpenters saw.
Can anyone tell me the length of that small skeg that goes between the two large skegs???
LOA 57 inches
This is my 3rd Missouri this size.
My first photo:
Pine bread and butter hull with poplar top slab 1/4 inch.
It was so cold today that when I squeezed the bottle of glue the container cracked.
After getting this all glued together I will start marking out the station lines.
Cutting out the fat.
The Japanese saw would not do it ,the sawzall would not do it, so I went outside
and used a vice and a skill saw and finished it with a carpenters saw.
Can anyone tell me the length of that small skeg that goes between the two large skegs???
Last edited by Luky on Thu Jan 17, 2013 2:21 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Went to get coffee.
-
Fliger747
- Posts: 5068
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Re: 1:192 USS Missouri modern configuration
Luky:
Chech my post in the calling all fans thread about the overall length for your ship. Easy to get it all straightened out now instead of later. Had my Tom's PE show up today. Really a fine product!
Cheers: Tom
Chech my post in the calling all fans thread about the overall length for your ship. Easy to get it all straightened out now instead of later. Had my Tom's PE show up today. Really a fine product!
Cheers: Tom
- Luky
- Posts: 221
- Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:27 pm
- Location: Guerneville,CA
Re: 1:192 USS Missouri modern configuration
Yes I got that measurement.Fliger747 wrote:Luky:
Chech my post in the calling all fans thread about the overall length for your ship. Easy to get it all straightened out now instead of later. Had my Tom's PE show up today. Really a fine product!
Cheers: Tom
Working on the bow right now.
I would not proceed until it is right.
Went to get coffee.
-
Fliger747
- Posts: 5068
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Re: 1:192 USS Missouri modern configuration
Looks like quick progress, i can see why you went outside! Do you have a particular technique for the concave curves near the bow?
Cherrs. Tom
Cherrs. Tom
- Luky
- Posts: 221
- Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:27 pm
- Location: Guerneville,CA
Re: 1:192 USS Missouri modern configuration
Yes that is problematic.Fliger747 wrote:Looks like quick progress, i can see why you went outside! Do you have a particular technique for the concave curves near the bow?
Cherrs. Tom
Last time I used a round rasp. I think I must have had more inthusiasum back then.
This time I think I will take it back outside and use a 4 inch grinder.
I hope it goes well. LO..lol
That concave starts at the bow and extends back 14 inches on a taper.
I am glueing up the stern and bow deck where it rams up a little.
I had to cut and make long taper wedges. Lots of work.
It is 30�F outside.
I think I will glue the deck ramps on at bow and stern instead.
Here are the photos of the wedge shaped pieces I made.
Now the deck is the correct measurement above the base line.
Went to get coffee.
-
Guest
Re: 1:192 USS Missouri modern configuration
I want to let anyone following this thread know that the scale of my model will be 1:187 because
my top view drawing I got from Floating Drydock (TFW) was 57 inches LOA.
It will not be a problem.
my top view drawing I got from Floating Drydock (TFW) was 57 inches LOA.
It will not be a problem.
- Luky
- Posts: 221
- Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:27 pm
- Location: Guerneville,CA
Re: 1:192 USS Missouri modern configuration
Make sure you fold the top view drawing down theGuest wrote:I want to let anyone following this thread know that the scale of my model will be 1:187 because
my top view drawing I got from Floating Drydock (TFW) was 57 inches LOA.
It will not be a problem.
centerline and trim so that both sides are symmetrical.
Went to get coffee.
- Luky
- Posts: 221
- Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:27 pm
- Location: Guerneville,CA
Re: 1:192 USS Missouri modern configuration
I did some serious work today.
Lots of wood dust.
I am ready now to make the skegs and rudders.
I will need to find some nice hard wood.
Lots of wood dust.
I am ready now to make the skegs and rudders.
I will need to find some nice hard wood.
Went to get coffee.
- Luky
- Posts: 221
- Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:27 pm
- Location: Guerneville,CA
Re: 1:192 USS Missouri modern configuration
My 02 deck did not line up with the 01 deck on the aft end.
The 02 deck (fortunately) was larger and will have to be sanded to fit.
Seems like all the drawings are off.
The 02 deck (fortunately) was larger and will have to be sanded to fit.
Seems like all the drawings are off.
Went to get coffee.
- Luky
- Posts: 221
- Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:27 pm
- Location: Guerneville,CA
Re: 1:192 USS Missouri modern configuration
I got some better photos to work with and i also got a 1/700 scale model of the 1991 version Missouri.
I had to do some reworking of the parts I had already cut.
I had to do some reworking of the parts I had already cut.
Last edited by Luky on Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
Went to get coffee.
- Timmy C
- Posts: 12460
- Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
- Location: Ottawa, Canada
Re: 1:192 USS Missouri modern configuration
Be aware that the 1/700 Trumpeter/Pit-Road Missouri has errors, particularly in the shape of the top of the main tower - the ECM housing is not accurately depicted.
De quoi s'agit-il?
- Luky
- Posts: 221
- Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:27 pm
- Location: Guerneville,CA
Re: 1:192 USS Missouri modern configuration
Thanks for pointing that out to me Timmy.Timmy C wrote:Be aware that the 1/700 Trumpeter/Pit-Road Missouri has errors, particularly in the shape of the top of the main tower - the ECM housing is not accurately depicted.
The kit i have is the 1991 version.
"Pit Road"? What does that mean?
Is the ECM (round ball)? you are talking about located on the main tower?
Went to get coffee.