The Ship Model Forum

Hi,

Having fun is most important

Bye

_________________
Thanks & Sources: Nilsson (research) and J.Arntz (research, drawings). HASSLER Profile, ZERO PAINTS, IWATA airbrush, EXCEL blades, Byrnes Model Machines and more

WATERLINE ISSUES 1/200 TRUMPETER BISMARCK

According to Anatomy of the Ship, Bismarck, the CONSTRUCTION waterline (CWL) lies at 9.3 meters above the keel at midships. If you disagree with the number, you must be using a different reference

There are other waterlines, most notably the laden waterline of the ship containing fuel, ammunition, crew, supplies. In that case, the waterline rides HIGHER than the CWL (laden = higher number).

The CWL on the Trumpeter Bismarck is calculated at midships: 9.3M X 100 mm/M = 9,300 mm X 1/200 = 46.5 mm = 4.65 cm.

If you mark the CWL at 4.65 cm midships on the model with a felt tip pen, and proceed to draw the line going forward at the 4.65 cm fixed height, all will go well, until you reach the stem. BUT, if you extend that same line, from midships, proceeding aft, the line will appear to "droop" away from the quarterdeck line as you reach the stern. This produces a downward-curving waterline about the stern which is unsightly, and you DON'T want to paint THAT on your model!

WHY? The problem is that the bulkhead and hull lines on the model beneath the quarterdeck taper too quickly toward keel and stern! The hull is effectively "undercut" too much in this area. The tip of your pen follows this incorrect curvature, warping the level waterline downward! The hull lines in this area would need to be "bulked up" to draw a straight CWL line from midships aft.

SOLUTIONS:

1.) For hobbyists (like myself), create an artistic waterline about 3 cm below the quarterdeck line and carry it forward to meet the 4.65 cm CWL midships line. Nobody will ever notice this "cheat" except other Bismarckian freaks!

OR

2.) For engineers, machinists, mathmaticians, astronomers and the like you'll need some 1/200 stern hull line templates. Then bulk up the stern hull so that you can draw a straight, level, waterline from midships CWL to stern.

I have been struggling with this on my build, before I realized the problem. I even cemented the MES (degaussing cable) along the lower boot line, using the "level CWL" method. Everything "drooped away" from the quarterdeck line badly! I have now removed the MES nearly from midships aft, and have patched the hull scrapes (see the white blobs of Tamiya Putty). After establishing an "artistic waterline" aft, I'll replace the MES, apply photoetch, and hopefully prime the hull.

Jason: I feel like I've put 100 hours into this hull already!

Hope this saves someone time and bother on waterlines!

_________________
Bill

SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM.

Many thanks for the clarification photos, they do help a lot. Maybe I can make it onto my attic today, grab that hull and see if it features the same problem. From what I've read here so far, not all hulls do have this problem. I find your solution very neat, although I don't quite understand how you figured out the 3cm measured from the upper edge of the hull. If you look at photos, there is no cwl visible. What you're looking at it the upper edge of the boot-topping, and this upper edge was 1m above the cwl (on your model 5.15cm above the keel). Your photos seem to indicate that the *artistic* upper edge of the boot-topping at the stern meets the lower cwl midships.

Happy painting ~ Olaf!


EDIT: I drew on the boot-topping (b/t) and cwl on my model, see attached snap. I've opted for the 2.7m version of the (b/t). Its upper edge at the stern is about 30mm from the main deck. About 6mm below is my cwl (@ 47.5mm from the keel, more or less), followed by the lower edge of the b/t which is located 75mm below the cwl. I think it looks okay, although I'm not quite sure about the height between the upper edge of the b/t and the upper edge of the side armour belt. Did I got that 47.5mm figure wrong?

Happy painting ~ Olaf!

Dear Olaf:

46.5 is the correct CONSTRUCTION waterline. If your ship is laden (as for battle), the laden waterline will be higher. and the showing boot top above it will be narrower. My photos thus far show no boot lines, as the top and bottom of those lines will lie above and below the construction waterline. I'm doing my boot lines in two stripes, VERY slightly lighter in color above the CWL, and a "scale black" color below. My CWL was only "roughed" in to glue 1.5 mm half round styrene strip near the bottom of the lower boot for the MES. Soon (hopefully) everything will be covered by Tamiya Fine Gray primer.

We're "on the same page" Olaf. Your waterline is higher at 47.5 mm (laden ship)...but we're only lalking about a 1 mm difference, and your planned upper boot top is narrower (2.7 mm) while mine will be wider at 4 mm (only 1.3 mm difference). My 4 mm width is partly for convenience...I can lay a 4 mm strip of Tamiya masking tape easily for the upper boot stripe. In the end, all will look fine.

_________________
Bill

SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM.

CWL was at 9.5 m, so 47.5 mm is right.

This is old news,
See my hull correction thread, where I corrected the complete stern. The whole area is a mess, the screw shaft shrouds are the wrong shape and the supports are mis shaped and misplaced.
To be honest the deck line of the hull is also too pointed, but if this were corrected the wood deck I have on order would not fit.

_________________
Regards

Nigel

Hi Bill ~ I just got the impression that the cwl on your model merges into the upper edge of the b/t at the stern. It doesn't matter if my cwl is 1mm higher than yours, but I find it funny that your recommendation of drawing a line 3cm below the quarterdeck results exactly into the upper edge of my b/t at the stern while it is the cwl on your model.

And my upper part of the b/t is 6mm as mentioned, not 2.7mm. My lower part is 0.75mm.
What happens if you put your 4mm above-part of the b/t on top of your 3cm-below-deck-cwl? Arent' you getting too close to the portholes that way?

Happy painting ~ Olaf!

Hallo Olaf:

If you look around the growing number of posts about the problematic stern on this kit (see Nigel), you'll realize that with this 1/200 Trumpeter Bismarck kit we are leaving the realm of technologic exactitude and entering the realm of ART. That doesn't mean the built kit OOB would simply be trash, not worth the effort.

On the contrary, this kit, when finished will be an attractive, dare I day SLIGHTLY impressionistic, artwork, closely RESEMBLING Bismarck. Certainly, it could have been engineered better.

But, then Look at member " HENKEE "'s 1/200 Trumpeter Bismarck out-of-the-box completion! Pretty handsome 1/200 scale model...very Bismarck-looking!

I'm not an engineering type, but I do have a bit of artistic talent. Measurements aside, I'm confident that my final product including waterline distances, etc will be quite attractive, and nobody but us Bismarckian freaks will ever notice issues with he stern hull.

From my perspective, the flaws of this kit are now freeing me to have some real FUN building it. since it's becoming clear that NOBODY is going to create the perfect 1/200 Bismarck with this kit!

So, "Let your hair down," folks, and rediscover the child within you! RELAX! HAVE CREATIVE PLAY!

_________________
Bill

SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM.

Anatomy of the Ship Bismarck cites a 9.3 m CWL.

Just curious, what is the reference for your 9.5 m CWL figure?

BUT: We are talking about a difference of only 20 cm (7.9 inches) in CWL location on the REAL, prototypic Bismarck hull!

But, on a 1/200 scale model we're actually discussing a mere 1.0 (one) millimeter difference in CWL location.

Since this build clearly is leaning away from the technical and toward the artistic, I'm no longer certain that a 1.0 mm waterline difference has any real significance, as long as the final product looks really pleasing to the builder, and perhaps to the non-building observer, as well.

This 1/200 Trumpeter Bismarck could have been a real war of "artists versus technocrats." But, now we are all discovering that Trumpeter has already tipped the scales well in favor of the artists!

Don't worry...that doesn't mean my Bismarck will be painted like a 1960's Sargeant Pepper's yellow, striped, paisley, polka-dotted, psychedelic submarine! There's still a bit of convention left here!

_________________
Bill

SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM.

To be sure, even if Trumpy's 1/200 Battleship Bismarck is built straight out of the box, no one would mistake it for -

1. The RMS Titanic

2. A Nimitz class CVN

3. The SS Minnow from Gilligan's Island

This 1/200 Trumpeter Bismarck could have been a real war of "artists versus technocrats." But, now we are all discovering that Trumpeter has already tipped the scales well in favor of the artists!


Good scale modelers have to be both artists and technocrats. That´s not a contradiction but a necessity.

_________________
Thanks & Sources: Nilsson (research) and J.Arntz (research, drawings). HASSLER Profile, ZERO PAINTS, IWATA airbrush, EXCEL blades, Byrnes Model Machines and more

Schlachtschiff Bismarck Linienriss, April 17th 1941
Schlachtschiff F Vorlaeufiges Kurvenblatt, October 20th, 36
Panzerschiff F Panzerschiff G Bauspantenriss, June 15th 1936
and
several weight calculations between 1935-1941
several stability calculations from 1935 or 36

DEGAUSSING CABLE (MES) and "beefed-up" FORWARD ANCHOR CLUSES:

Work on my 1/200 Trumpeter Bismarck creeps slowly forward...too many professional demands right now!

At any rate, applied the degaussing cable (MES) all the way round, using Evergreen Plastics 1.5 mm half round styrene strip. This went on very nicely, but if I had to do it over, would use narrower 1.0 mm styrene strip or perhaps fine copper wire to achieve a less prominent degaussing cable. However, artistically all may work out well, since the degaussing cable will be painted scale black, along with the lower boot top. Depending on how dark the final paint color is, the heavier degaussing cable may look OK, since it will at least show up. But...live and learn! These comments are for the cadres of Bismarck builders still reading, who have not yet committed to the build.

Also, perusal of photos seems to indicate that the 1/200 Trumpeter Bismarck forward anchor cluses, moulded on the hull are "too weak" looking. I "beefed mine up" using some Milliput Fine Putty. While the putty was firm but adherent, the new cluses were carved with a #11 X=Acto blade. Then they were sanded. Initial primer on the starboard bow reveals a few irregularities in the new cluses, which will be smoothed out with Tamiya White Putty and resanded until smooth. Creating these improved cluses was easier than I expected. I will use a similar approach when I model the large "half C" rings of the upper cluses, which Trumpeter neglected to include

_________________
Bill

SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM.

Wilhelm,

nice work!

But talking about the MES it starts right behind the anchor cluses and does not go around the stem. It ends approx. at frame 10 at the stern.

_________________
Thanks & Sources: Nilsson (research) and J.Arntz (research, drawings). HASSLER Profile, ZERO PAINTS, IWATA airbrush, EXCEL blades, Byrnes Model Machines and more

Dear Bernd:

With respect to the bow, after reexamining the few photos available to me, I think you are correct. Should be an easy fix to trim the MES back to the rear of the cluses port and starboard. Thanks!

With respect to the stern, look at the attached photo. Isn't the lighter, bulging line curving around the stern the MES?

_________________
Bill

SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM.

Hi Bill,

I know the picture and to me it seems to be misleading due to the soft edged stains around the stern. The MES was very sharp and crisp in appearance, while the stains are very softedged. The MES should be parallel to the lower edge of the stern armour belt and ends at frame 10.5. That´s my knowledge ...

Bye!

_________________
Thanks & Sources: Nilsson (research) and J.Arntz (research, drawings). HASSLER Profile, ZERO PAINTS, IWATA airbrush, EXCEL blades, Byrnes Model Machines and more

Hallo Bernd:

Thanks again for your input about the MES. Interestingly, your description of the MES layout beginning at frame 10.5 and ending aft of the cluses is perfect for Prinz Eugen, although the MES on Prinz Eugen was well above the waterline where it is easily seen, not on the lower boot top as with Bismarck. I believe Prinz Eugen was completed about two weeks before Bismarck, and obviously, the two ships had much in common.

Regarding the photo, I enlarged it 300 % and looked along those controversial "stain lines." There does appear to be a cable-like structure beginning just under the first drain hole, and running forward. Might be frame 10.5 and might be the MES. What do you think?

Bill

_________________
Bill

SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM.

BRASS PEDESTALS FOR MOUNTING BISMARCK

My strategic approach to the hull of this static 1/200 Trumpeter Bismarck build is:

1.) Do all of the "heavy handling," i.e. sanding, cutting, and filing, and more sanding and filling first. Unfortunately, there is a lot of handling involved with this big hull.
2.) Apply the photoetch, gluing photoetch to bare plastic for best adhesion...BUT, NOW HANDLING THE HULL BECOMES A DELICATE MATTER! Think of all the work you will have put into those scuttles and little brass foot and hand rungs on the stern!
3.) Prime and paint the hull. Even this requires thought, as you won't want to apply any tape over that photoetch!
4.) NOW, get your paws off the "finished" hull! That means fastening the hull either to a work-plank or to the finished display plank (which you would need to protect from paint and glue while working on the superstructure).

I'm still on Step 1. Am awaiting some photoetch parts from Germany before proceeding with some more hull cutting, filing, gluing, etc. In the meantime, I decided to approach Step 4...developing a stand for the model.

Most comercially available brass pedestals for ship models are too small for this big kit...so you have to be inventive! I thought it would be cool to mount the ship on some empty brass 30 mm cannon casings, but my local Army-Navy surplus store didn't have any. Besides, they would have required a ton of drilling, polishing, and finishing to look nice.

Instead, I purchased a brass finish towel bar at my local Home Depot. The bar holders, which are designed to mount on a wall are to become my brass pedestals. Using a hacksaw, I carefully cut the ball fitting off the top of the holder. Now, I have a pedestal in-the-rough, about 2 3/4 inches tall. Then I drilled 1/4 inch holes through the pedestal to accomodate my 3/8 inch X 4 inch bolts, which will pass through 3/8 inch holes in the keel to mate with "toggles" pre-mounted inside the hull. The "toggles" distribute the pull of the screws as they are tightened, so the plastic hull won't crack. I may reinforce the plastic where the toggles contact the hull interior with some sheet styrene. The 4 inch bolt length leaves plenty of room for a 1/2 inch work plank or finished display plank.

There will be a brass washer on top of the final mounted pedestal with a felt washer snugged against the exterior model.

For a work stand, I may use two 2 - 3 inch lengths of PVC as work "pedestals"

Note: You can easily switch from the work plank to the finished display plank, as long as the toggles are securely fixed inside the hull and properly aligned with the holes in the keel when you go looking for them at model mounting time.

_________________
Bill

SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM.

Good idea for the base, I might have to use that idea in the future!

My only suggestion is that you permanently attach the butterfly nut on the inside of the hull somehow... someday you might need to take the Bissy off her stand. You never know when Murphy's law will decide to come into play.

_________________
-Jason Channell

Current Project: 1/200 Bismarck

MES

Hi,

You could be right, but frame 10.5 is further to the left.

Bye.

_________________
Thanks & Sources: Nilsson (research) and J.Arntz (research, drawings). HASSLER Profile, ZERO PAINTS, IWATA airbrush, EXCEL blades, Byrnes Model Machines and more