Calling all Iowa-class (BB-61) fans

[Fliger747]

The photo I saw of the open Trumpy box had the hull from about abeam the 161 turret as one piece and the bow forward of there as two pieces joining along the keel line. probably in order to release the bulbous bow from the molds and to shorten the length of the box. I am sure there will be some interesting builds from this kit. On my 1:192 semi scratch of BB63 I am using the rails and ladders from Tom's, probably scale, but as you say somewhat on the fragile side.

Yes damp is a better term, wet I guess tends to imply green water.... An ingenious hull design for high speed, sacrificing some of the prismatic coefficient for better space for machinery, fuel and sufficient torpedo belt.

What Fletcher did you serve on? There were some still in the Naval Reserve as training ships into the late 60's.

Cheers: Tom

[RandyM]

Attached are three photos of the major piece of the hull. You can see from these the parts breakdown (2pcs) and how they go together. Also attached are the instruction plates for the three steps related to the main assy of the hull. As you can see from the photos, there really is no detail whatsoever. But plenty of room to "experiment." The challenge - IMO - will be to not overdo it.

Regarding the PE in this kit, I can't comment as I haven't opened it up yet. I was sufficiently impressed with Pontos' offering for Bismarck that I have ordered the Missouri set as well.







http://www.nulspace.com/hobbies/missouri/hull_assy.pdf

[Timmy C]

Yes.

[Timmy C]

Yeah, that could get tricky. But you can see the separate bilge keels here: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v736/ ... 6aa1c5.jpg

[William Smallshaw]

All,

I was working atop the armored citadel on USS Iowa today (top of 05 level), cleaning up the periscope housings. I took some photographs that might be of interest. The opened periscopes are the tops of the scopes for the armored conning station (04 level). The remainder (still covered) are for the armored spotting room on the 05 level. The small scopes have very small magnification, presume the larger scope has more magnification as it is a larger tube.

Bill

[BB62vet]

Thanks guys, for the info. re. the hull parts. Somehow, photos are not showing. Could be security software (not at home) interferring, don't know why.

Tom, I've sent you an email re. your question.

[Fliger747]

Thanks Hank, not sure why the photos are not showing.

Cheers: Tom

[BB62vet]

Tom,

New day and pictures show!!!

Looking closely at the main hull, it looks very similar to the 1:350 hull of the Life-Like/Tamiya MISSOURI, only larger. And I'm interpreting the comments for the bow parts as 2 forward pieces split down the middle. I agree, this was probably done for packaging requirements.

I also noticed the absence of any pinhole locations for the bilge keels. Since I have the 1:192 scale Floating Drydock plans of NEW JERSEY (1968) and am going to reduce them (to 96%) in order to have 1:200 scale plans, this should not be a problem in determining their location.

So, I'm a bit closer to a decision on this model, but not quite there yet!

[Fliger747]

Hank:

If you do build this model you will have to keep everyone informed of the progress and ins and outs. I can see why lack of detail on the exterior of the hull might be advantageous as it appears that the external piping etc varied from ship to ship and by date. Some really ambitious soul with a plating plan will go overboard with this!

Many of the museum ship photos show the weather decks painted in haze gray, I presume this was not a reflection of the ship in service but part of the deactivation preservation?

Cheers: Tom

[Fliger747]

Hank:

A pretty long thread on the Trumpy kit here: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=154450

Cheers: Tom

[BB62vet]

Tom,

I'll do my best to give an online "build" if this comes to pass. I did this for my 2006-12 scratchbuilt PEACOCK (1813) sloop/ship build on the MSW forum. I'll admit that it was a chore, but I also realize that these forums are a god-send to the modeling community. I've gotten and given a lot of advice from others and to others over the 10 or so years I've been back into ship modeling. We'll see how this pans out !

Re. your comments on the Trumpy hull - yes, the individual ships of the class had some differences in their overboard discharge pipes. After NEW JERSEY was reactivated for Nam, her discharges were covered with vertical discharge covers to direct these wastes into the ocean at waterline level. This was done mid-Westpac 68-69 as can be seen in any of the various photos from the period. This was a change from her 50's configuration. Another detail I would incorporate if I were to pursue this would be the series of eyebolts that are welded in two rows along both sides of the bow aft towards the area where the hull widens - these were for the purpose of tying off stages or camels when doing hull maintenance work over the side or in port. This is common to all 4 IOWAs and is a detail that would be almost impossible to show on anything smaller in scale.

I also noticed that the Trumpy kit does not include or show the forward boat booms on both sides of the hull up forward. They do include the aft booms. This is something we did have in the late '60s and I would want to include.

Since I already have every book on the IOWA class known to mankind, I probably have overkill in the reference dept. One can never have too many reference materials

For some reason, I'm actually getting stoked about this model - I wonder why ??

I have read some of post you mentioned, I'll probably peruse it later tonight in depth. The pix included answered my questions re. the hull parts.

Thanks once again,

Hank

[BB62vet]

Tom, et al -

One other comment re. the IOWAs - the first two of the class were of riveted construction and the last FOUR were welded construction. NEW JERSEY was one of the riveted ships. While welding was done as can be seen in the hull plating, structural beams and plates were riveted, hence the difference in construction methods. I don't know how much of the plating lines I would want to show even on this size model. To some degree, the horizontal plate lines might be nice to have visible, but sometimes modelers go overboard on this stuff. This would be a topic of discussion before building the model.

Hank

[Fliger747]

Onboard BB63 there is a 1:96 model by the well known British modeler John Haynes which does have the padeyes under the bow overhang. I do believe that at least ships three and four were still riveted amidships. I am not sure if these can be represented successfully at 1:200. Plating lines have been successfully represented by masking and painting, especially with primers that have some "build".

I am currently futzing about with a more or less scratch build of BB63 modern configuration which is elsewhere described under scrachbuild projects.

Cheers: Tom

[BB62vet]

Tom,

You are probably correct re. the rivet/weld comments - I don't think that the rivet heads, being flush with the surface, would make any difference even on the 1:200 scale.

As for the plate lines, I was wondering if scoring the hull with a fine pointed awl might give the impression once it's sprayed over with paint.

I'll check out your build.

Hank

[Fliger747]

A photo of BB63, about abeam the bridge. Note the faint horizontal rivet lines and the vertical plates, which I believe are used to lap the hull plating and are semi flush riveted.

Tom

[Haijun watcher]

My apologies if this has already been asked before...

But has anyone here ever built the Fujimi 1/700 USS New Jersey or the Fujimi 1/700 USS Missouri? I was just wondering how they compared in quality and accuracy compared to Tamiya's 1/700 Iowa and the Missouri?

My local store has the aforementioned Fujimi kits, though from the box art I am not able to tell if the New Jersey is supposed to depict the ship in 1943, 44 or 45. I think I remember seeing floatplanes in the box art, so I can safely assume it wasn't during the Korean War, but the ship is just in haze gray and not sporting the MS21, M22 or MS32 camouflage she and her sisters would have sported at the time.

[Timmy C]

The Fujimi kits of the Iowas were made before Tamiya's 1/700 kits - accordingly less detailed. Tamiya's Iowa is their newest Iowa class kit and was released within the last decade.

[Timmy C]

An 18-min video of BB-61 in 1953-54 - note the _ for the 61 on the turret top, just in case anyone were to mistaken it for 19...

[BB62vet]

Tom,

Thanks for the BB63 shot of her hull plates. I will have to consult with one of my acquaintances who built a 1:96 NORTH CAROLINA (BB-55) that now resides on board USS NORTH CAROLINA Museum as to whether or not it would be worth doing that level of detailing. He's a professional and I need to consult w/him on some other things re. this kit also. I've seen some of the POF (Plank on Frame) and POB (Plank on Bulkhead) frigates, ships of the line, brigs, etc. that have all the treenails shown on hull & deck planking and, in some cases, it is just overkill. I'm kind of thinking along the lines that if the hull had the horizontal plates picked out and perhaps any connecting vertical plates also highlighted that with the overboard discharges, boat booms, and stern ladder handrails, this would be more than enough to make a very interesting model.

The attached photo I took while the ship was in Yokosuka, Japan in '69.

[Fliger747]

Hank:

Indeed that would probably about the limit of useful hull detail at this scale. The hand ladders at the stern would be a particular challenge, though good examples have been done. Anatoly has a very nice 1:200 Bismark hull he has been detailing over in the scratch build section. At some point less detail is better if the overall effect starts to look even a bit cartoonish. I am not sure what the thickness of the bow and stern plating is, guessing 10-20 lb plate which would give a scale thickness of about 1-2 thousandths.

Do you have an era for which you would build?

Cheers: Tom