Calling all Iowa-class (BB-61) fans

[Geno the Viking]

I had a chance to visit the Iowa for the first time a few days ago and it was fantastic. I'm pleased that the ship is in great shape except for the teak deck. The deck is mostly covered in outdoor plywood right now and the teak that is exposed is really terrible in most spots. They probably will have to re-do the whole ship. What a great piece of history.

I'm up in Everett, Washington so I used to visit the Missouri on a regular basis including her last cruise through the Navy League. Now we just have a few little ships up here like the Nimitz. He he.

[bigjimslade]

Tables of Offset contain the numerical dimensions describing the shape of the hull. Real ship builders require them to create the hull frames and sections that we modellers sometimes use. Modelers who utilize CAD would also prefer using the Tables rather than the hull frame drawings because tracing over the hull frames is not very precise (e.g. which side of the line do you trace on?), whereas numbers are very exact and you can just enter them into the computer with no ambiguity.

All true:

I have been drawing up some very precise plans for various types of things. When you work with printed plans in a computer you find that they are not consistent in 3d dimensions. You trace the hull sections and everything looks find---from the front. You go to the side and see a big hump.

If you were making a model out of wood, you'd get a plane.

It's more difficult in the computer. PLUS, my goal is accuracy. If I have to guessing, what's the point of my spending all the time doing the work? I can produce a really clean and accurate set of plans and fix the 3D errors in the computer.

I can't count the number of times I have been referred to the horribly warped plans on the HNSA web site when I have asked for accurate Iowa class info.

I have every commercial plan as well and they have the same kinds of problems.

If anyone knows where to find accurate information, I'd appreciate knowing it.

[Fliger747]

I am sure that 3D printing could be used to master not really huge items with some precision if the appropriate data were available.

Cheers. T

[Fliger747]

Couple of photos of the present WIP. Most of the components are not assembled as yet, much to refine and cleanup, tremendous detail to still add, corrections to make etc.

[Fliger747]

View from Waterline:

[Fliger747]

One item to change (of hundreds) is the support structure under the midships Mk 37 directors, which is now enclosed and not cross braced as in WWII.

T

[Jimmy Conway]

I'm doing some research, and ask help if anybody can bring it: at what speed did floatplanes Curtiss SC Seahawk leaved catapults exactly when launched from IOWAS?

Were them catapults type P?


http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/57l.htm

Any tip for this information, or any refrence to help find it?
Some search in the web made no returns........

Thank you very much: Jimmy

[Fliger747]

I don't have that info exactly but fly airplanes for a living, probably about 75-80 knots.

Good luck. T

[Jimmy Conway]

I don't have that info exactly but fly airplanes for a living, probably about 75-80 knots.

Good luck. T

Hi Fliger, thanks for attention. Some place register at about 60 for Kingfisher.......... that is about what you say.
Read here:

http://ussslcca25.com/kingfisher.htm

I had no idea of it.

Watch the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGpSmisT8Kw

Best: Jimmy

[Fliger747]

Landing speed for the OS2U seems to be 57 mph. For launch, which would be at a greater weight typically I would guess at leat 10 mph over that, so maybe 65 knots? Earlier catapults used a black powder charge, not sure if another system was used by this time.

Good luck. T

[Fliger747]

None of the reference materials that I have plus my own fairly extensive photos of the ship are helping me much an issue concerning with construction of the fwd tower mast. The main issue is how much taper the aft legs have inboard. Some of my photos taken from the fwd Tomahawk deck suggest some modest taper inboard, other photos, not clear, from some distance suggest very little if any taper inboard. The drawings I have show the tower in profile, or from the front with most of the superstructure masking all. Looks to be that the outside of the aft mast legs at the top should be about 15 1/2 feet? (which means I get to redo the aft part of the mast...)

T

[rtwpsom2]

Fliger, I am looking over the pics and dwgs I have and am unsure which aft legs you are referring too. The only ones I see are the fwd braces that attach to the funnel walkways. Can you show a pic of the area in question? Also, if the legs are round it would be unlikely there is any taper. Uncle Sam tended to prefer cheaper over fancy.

[Fliger747]

Rob:

Sorry for not being accurate enough. I am building a 1:192 Modern Missouri, which is really a conversion/rebuild/improvement of a model I built many years ago. The fwd tower mast has two legs attached to the sides of the stack and one attached to the fire control tower. The legs attached to the stack are angled forward, and canted slightly inward, it is the degree of inward cant I need to determine.

Thanks! Tom

[Fliger747]

Looking rather closely at some of my photos of the mast, it appears that the legs are not really straight but become more closely parallel in the upper half! Laying a straight edge on one photo along the lower portion leg, there appears to be a 1-2 deg divergence in the upper half above the stack. This might be an additional reason for the lateral gusseting of the legs in this area.

[rtwpsom2]

Tom, I have compared New Jersey's and Missouri's masts and they seem pretty similar. I came up with some numbers based off NJ's BofGP. The mast starts off of supports at the 06 level (98' 5") and goes up to 162' 8" for an overall height of the leg of 64' 3". At the base they are 24" in diameter and are 20' apart athwartships. At the top they are 12" in diameter and 9' 4" apart athwartships. The angle between the legs viewed from aft is 9.45� (meaning each leg is angled inward 4.725�). The angle of fwd cant is 13.4�. You could probably round those numbers to 9.5� and 13.5� safely. Hope that helps.

[Fliger747]

Thank you very much!

Cheers: Tom

[Angeliccypher]

Am I correct in saying that the only two Iowa class that were painted in in any dazzle measure are the Iowa and Missouri right? Also how accurate is Tamyia's painting guide to the Missouri in 32/3D?

[Cliffy B]

Check it against the real design sheets. BB-63 wore Ms 32/22D

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/imag ... 09729c.htm
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/imag ... 09730c.htm

[Angeliccypher]

My mistake. I was going off what shipcamouflage.com had listed. But those are the only two that wore dazzle of any kind right?

[Fliger747]

Yes, of the four those were the only two to carry the measure 32 disruptive pattern. Certainly there are photos of Missouri to check out against the pattern design to see if it was executed per the drawings.

Cheers: T