1:200 USS NEW JERSEY (BB-62) 68-69 (Trumpeter MISSOURI kit)

[tko24]

This is what I used to scribe the waterline onto my 1/200 Trumpy Bismarck. It's also how I intend to do it to my Trumpy Missouri. http://www.micromark.com/toolmakers-sur ... ,7115.html. I just need to find out in milimeters the distance from the keel to the top and bottom edges of the boot topping. Mine like my Bismarck will be a waterline build.

[finn]

Thanks for the reply Hank. I will be doing the WW ll version. I am just having a hard time deciding if I want to go all out with the detail set. I love the pics I have seen of the P.E. just not sure it is practical on a model that will be transported and handled a lot. I do appreciate your input. Thanks for taking the time to answer.

Rick

[Fliger747]

The tool that I described is much as the one you are using TKO, except it is a bit heavier and has a magnetic on off base. I picked it up at some industrial tool supply in (ummm) Shanghai on a layover.

My AB Chesley drawing of BB63 ( from Stillwell, BB63) in the 80-90's configuration shows a broad even width boot top.

Thanks to Hank for stimulating a lot of research and discussion that brings to light much about these interesting ships!

Cheers: Tom

[BB62vet]

Tom,

Thanks for the kind remarks. Well, I ended up removing the stern rungs and filling and sanding with Green Stuff and will redo all of the rung holes when i get my little Tamiya drill & bits that are on order from Hobbylinc. These bits are 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, and 0.8mm diameters and I should have waited to use them in the first place. I also ordered their basic drill set - 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3mm bits.

As for the boot topping -

After consulting my various plans and Lee Upshaw's prior posting re. this topic, I have decided that for this build the TLK rendering of NEW JERSEY (67-69) will be what I follow. The boot topping on this print is virtually parallel in it's width from stem to stern. I do have some measurements to give:

My model hull @ midships (center) = 3 7/32" from the keel to the top of the freeboard.
Reduced TLK Plan @ midships (center) = 3 11/32" from the keel to the top of the freeboard.
Actual reduction factor for dimensioning = .962677

Keel to top of boot topping (Plan) = 2 1/4"
Keel to top of boot topping (model - reduced) = 2 5/32"
Width of Boot Topping (Plan) @ Stern = 11/32"
Width of Boot Topping (model - reduced) = same
Width of Boot Topping (Plan) @ Stem = 3/8"
Width of Boot Topping (model - reduced) = same
Overall Width of Boot Topping for model = 3/8" - I don't think that the variation of 1/32" at one end is going to make any difference at this point.

Note - My Measure Master Pro #4020 Model Calculator does not give calculations below those shown above for the reduced Boot Topping Widths.

Hope this helps,

Hank

[Fliger747]

Hank:

One of the more useful measuring tools I have used is a digital caliper, which measures in thousandth's of an inch or in some decimal of millimeters. As my project is in 1: 192, or 1/16 inch to the foot the fractional inch measurements are easier to convert. Digging through some stuff I found my dads old Picket Slide Rule, which I can easily leave set as a scale converter. Sometimes analogue is quicker!

I like it that several folks, including yourself and Steve are building up this kit in various ships and eras, bringing forth a lot of useful research and discussion.

Cheers: Tom

[BB62vet]

TKO - Thanks for the link to MicroMark - I may just get that item - looks like it will do the trick.

Hank

[BB62vet]

The last two weeks I've been working on the Foremast/Radar Suite and the following photo show it's current status. With the exception of the main mast pole (Pontos part) everything else is scratch made. The brass comes from both the Pontos and kit PE sets. I'm about 75% finished and will post new photos when complete.

I'm waiting on a couple deliveries of parts, tools, and radar set drawings in order to build the surface and air search antennae and then will put the railings around each of the platforms, add ladders, whip antenna, waveguild trays. The uppermost radar platform will be added once the others below are complete.

This is has been a very tedious process to say the least...

Hank

[Channell]

It's looking good Hank!

I just got my Pontos set the other day and have a couple more bits and pieces on the way; I'm chomping at the bit to start mine.

[BB62vet]

Thanks, Jason!

I hadn't realized how delicate the PE is - it certainly takes a lot of patience. Luckily for me, I'm well tuned to giving the occasional #$%@@#$ every time I mess something up - which is often

Hank

[Fliger747]

Vey nice Hank, yes we know the sailors secret method for relieving stress at appropriate moments....

Looks to be you are turning some plastic and wood there, do you have a small lathe or the traditional chuck it in a drill method? Ah yes, PE..... Now to safely stow these away! A question as to joining the brass parts, some very fine soldering or CA adhesive. If CA, how are you keeping the little "gents" in position?

Keep up the good work, as always.... Tom

[BB62vet]

Tom,

Thanks for the comments! Always appreciated.

Lathes - I have a Turncrafter Pro Midi Lathe w/18" extension (Penn State Industries) - I used this for turning the wood "radar" domes. I also have a Proxxon DB-250 mini lathe, but that one is in the box right now; not set up for use.

I have been using CA glue on these parts, no solder. When I get to the main mast, 4 legs with supports @ the after stack, I may set up some sort of jig to hold two legs & braces at a time and solder these together. Then somehow solder the cross braces to the 2 sets of legs. I haven't thought this completely thru just yet.

I still have some SATcomm and ECM antennae to build for the lower forearm and will probably bash some of the kit and Pontos PE - I also am awaiting a Tom's PE radar set for 1:192 destroyers and will bash that as well, for the parts. The main mast antennae should be fairly simple - I'll use styrene rods for most of that. One note re. the photo - I've had various pictures of the masts of NJ to use but none that are really close up and detailed, so to a certain extent the items shown on the upper yardarm are somewhat speculative and may not be 100% correct. I have yet to find a photo of NJ (1968-69) that is one of those USN photos that has all of the mast and yard components called out by equipment no. so I'm guessing at some of this. I have a really good color photo I took looking up at the foremast/stack in 1968 that I may blow up - it does show a few mast items and the waveguides running up to the 1st level platform.

Today's mail brought the Chesley plans and body sections from Floating Drydock - they were folded which is pissing me off really bad - you NEVER fold prints or plans, they are always stored in rolls or in flat files. I'll take them in Monday and copy/reduce to 1:200 and then I'll be able to see where the hull is off and by how much. The sections are cut at 20+ stations and match with the cut lines on the hull plan. After copy/reduction, I'll roll the originals up around a cardboard tube for storage in a mailing tube. I may email Floating Drydock and let them know my displeasure with getting folded plans (hasn't happened before).

The small Tamiya drill & bits arrived today also and I'll assemble it this weekend and take it with me Sunday. This should prove better at drilling the fine holes in the hull for the rungs.

That's about it for now.

Hank

[Channell]

Hank- You have to pay Model Dockyard an extra 2 bucks to get your plans sent in a tube, just so you know.

I just got my first set of plans (I got GQ-BB61, deck layout for Iowa 1946) and I am a bit shocked by what I'm seeing. According to the plans, the Trumpy kit is a full 2 inches too short... and that's accounting for the (very small) difference between 1/192 and 1/200.

But it's not just wrong...there are sections where everything aligns perfectly (including the portholes and doors), then everything goes wrong, but you can line the kit pieces up again down further down the line.

In other words, it looks like it WAS right, but somebody deleted small 1/4-1/2" cross-sections here and there down the length of the hull, cutting out a fair amount of the actual length where they could get away without screwing up the proportions of the whole.

Can you confirm or deny?

Unless my plans are incorrect... but Model Dockyard doesn't seem to have reputation for selling bad plans.

I can just see a couple of Trumpy execs yelling at CAD guy to delete delete DELETE! After all, the plastic savings must have added up to what, like 10 Yuans per kit times who knows how many kit sold... I'm sure that buys a wild night or two in Guangzhou.

[BB62vet]

Jason,

Yes, I've recently found out that $2.50 at Floating Drydock gets you rolled plans, not folded. Live & learn.

1:200 is 96% of 1:192 scale. I've resized all my plans accordingly where applicable. I will agree with you that the model does not match up with the 1:200 deck plan, regardless of which period you are working with (1945, 1956, 1967, 1982). I didn't measure but if you say 2" short, well that would make it 1:192 scale (887'-6" @ 1:192 = 55.46" long) so I'm not sure about the 2" short on this model. 1:200 scale means the model should be 53 1/4" long. If I'm wrong on the real size (887'-6") then I apologize - I'm at home, not my workshop.

I've also noticed that some of the bitts, chocks, etc. fall into place, but the overall deck does not. OK, how critical is this? I don't know. I guess the purist would demand their money back, my feelings are "how do I work with what I'm given to work with?"

Duly noting your sarcasm, criticism, and outright disdain for Trumpeter at this point, I have the same feeling - the corp. heads decided to cut here and there to save a Yuan. You know, when you've seen Yuan, you've seen Amahl!!! OK, I'll be nice..........

I'm going to live with the hull and try to build the model around the inaccuracies. I'm actually working around the hull at this point in hopes that one of the other modelers on this forum goes ahead and starts "correcting" and I can determine whether their methods are feasible for me to attempt. So, that's my take on it at this stage of the operation.

I wish I could be more helpful, but at least I've given you my honest assessment at this point.

Hank

[Fliger747]

As a fellow member of the old folks brain fart society I can understand some confusion here. The 1:200 model should be shorter than the 1:192 by about 2.2". The folks anticipating a lot of scratch building for various eras will be more likely to overcome any issues. Hank is lucky to have the facilities for changing the scale of the plans.

Scratch building is even more fun when you screw it up yourself! Certainly not saving enough RMB for a cold Tsingdao.

Regards: Tom

[BB62vet]

What Tom said!

Hank

[Channell]

For someone so full of Trumpeter hate, I sure buy a lot of their stuff.

I'm probably underestimating the difference between 1/192 and 1/200 scale more than anything. I suppose it's too slight to be noticeable on small pieces like doors but not so much in the "grand scheme of things".

Anyway, I've got plenty of time to think about it before I actually start building as I still have a house to put together after moving a couple weeks ago. I'm still very interested to see what you come up with on your New Jersey though and I won't be too far behind. I'm pretty sure I'm gonna attempt a 1945 Iowa with all the appropriate differences.

[Fliger747]

The difference between 1:200 and 1:192 seems negligible, but the overall volume and weight of the completed ballasted ship would be almost 12% different!

Cheers. Tom

[BB62vet]

Jason,

Glad to have you on board for the view. Expect a l-o-n-g cruise....

Hank

[Fliger747]

Hank:

Looking forward to your next photo post. Doing a lot of the fiddly bits first is one way to hone the building skills! Always great to learn of new techniques and tools... or how to accomplish the old ones...

Cheers: T

[Fliger747]

Hank

Page 113 of Sumeralll has a photo of NJ enroute to sea trials 1968 that shows the mast reasonably well. The previous page is one of those useful USN photos describing all the "stuff", but for an earlier era. Page 114 is a bow on shot showing the antennas lateral to the fire control tower upper levels. Not much help but every little clue can matter.

Regards. Tom