Calling all Iowa-class (BB-61) fans

[RandyM]

Chuck is correct: these are Veteran Models p/n VTW20001S. The kit comes with 20x Mk2 mounts and 20x mk-51 directors. Should take me about a month to complete...

[Channell]

Randy, we've gotta get you to do an official build log so your awesome work doesn't get lost in the abyss of this thread.

[Fliger747]

Randy:

This is a kit of twenty mounts, or you bought 20 individuals? No cheap little guys at $12 if bought individually. I do like that the covers are left off the loading guides.

Regards. Tom

[chuck]

They are not cheap, but they are available in box of 20 for aroun $120.

[RandyM]

Yes, I purchased the 20-piece set. They also come in 2x packs for $12. Which begs the question, where is the bulk savings? I've seen somewhere that Pontos is going to include them in the "advanced add-on" set for Missouri, but I haven't seen a release date for this kit and didn't want to wait. So I rationalized it by figuring I'd spend a bunch in shipping if I spread them out in smaller batch purchases.

Yes they are pricey, but for me it's the details - such as the weapons - which make or break an otherwise nice model. And since I'm not good at repetitive details, I whimped out and made the purchase. I've had to significantly increase my hobby budget for 2014/2015. I recently - and finally after years of agonizing - pulled the trigger on a 1/96 Missouri. Note that I took the precaution to take my wife down to Santee Lakes to witness the recent gathering. When she saw a 1/96 battleship her reaction, although not awe-inspired, was not one of adamant "no way in h*ll" (which I internally took as the official Green Light necessary to move forward). But I'm going to finish the 1/200 kit first!

Channell: thank you for the compliment. I do document much of what I build, and used to maintain reasonable logs on my website. But time is always a premium for me - one of the reasons said website is such a mess at the moment. Plus I have too many projects going on. Don't know how much you know about trains, but here's a pic of a project I've been working on for a while. It started life as an undecorated Athearn Genesis SD70ACe, and is being built to represent Union Pacific 1995, part of their "Heritage Fleet." Of course, about halfway into the project Athearn came out with their finished version. I've probably got 20+ hours in the paint alone, and it needs another 4 or 5...

http://www.nulspace.com/hobbies/missour ... ce1995.jpg

[Fliger747]

Creative builder types tend to wander in their interests and often have several projects at once. It is amazing that any ever get completed! I may get some add-on 40 mm for my Alaska project though originally I wanted to scratch build them. They are as you know quite tiny! To see an amazing construction of these in wood see Son Jung Gun's 1:200 KGV!

But first to finish the Missouri, these projects stretch to years sometimes! I am not sure that assembling a kit properly with corrections is any easier than scratch building, and in fact can require quite a bit of fabrication.

Cheers. Tom

[RandyM]

The analogy I use for scratch-building vs. "fixing" a kit is the difference between building a new house vs. REbuilding an older one. For example, cutting in a forced-air HVAC system into an existing house is - IMO - far more challenging than installing it while a house is being built.

[RandyM]

Assembly is complete for mount on the left. Right side shows additional components to be installed. Gives you an idea of the complexity, which isn't bad at all. The larger scale makes shaping of the sights and other small parts much easier.

Given the look of the finished unit, I feel a little better about the price. Eighteen more to go...

[RandyM]

It is done...

I'm actually pretty happy with this result - and I'm pretty much my own biggest critic. Here are three quick shots from astern - I can no longer discern where the cut/reattachment was made: the transition is virtually perfect this time (if such a thing exists). The sides show no evidence of oil-canning (or whatever it's called). This was achieved by backfilling with resin on the inside those sections which are large flat surfaces, creating a very rigid structure... see last photo below (sorry I haven't cleaned up the insides from sanding yet).

The deck also fits very well now. I need to trim the cutouts for the aft 40mm tubs just a bit - tune them up, really - and then I can prep for paint.

This has certainly been a learning experience. I think on the "production" version I'd increase the thickness again to 0.060" (from the current 0.040"), and include the four frames as they make nice "bays" for pouring and retaining resin. As entertaining as this has been, it will be nice to focus on building the rest of the ship

[BB62vet]

Randy,

The hull looks super!! You have done a fantastic job throughout. Very impressed with it all. The fact that it's impossible to notice any break in the hull from the outside is amazing. Keep me in the loop, etc. - Thanks!

You deserve a very Merry Christmas!!

Hank

[chuck]

This looks beautiful, Randy.

I am eagerly looking forward to the production model.

[ModelMonkey]

This looks beautiful, Randy.

Absolutely does. Well done!

[Channell]

Another case of trumpeteritis successfully cured...

[Christian M.]

Another case of trumpeteritis successfully cured...

+1!

[Fliger747]

Indeed, great job on the stern. Interesting to see the two ways people have tackled this so far, low tech and high tech, each a great improvement. Not sure one might have been able to scratch the whole hull in about the same time, but at least you are getting a good deck fit. The resin is a good way to stiffen, did you get any shrinkage?

Cheers. Tom

[Fliger747]

Kline fraggen?

I don't have any photos of the top of turret three for the current version of BB63. Is the arrangement of padeyes, Davits and what have you the same as turret two?

T.

[Channell]

Gotta show off the "low tech" version too... I'm looking for some good critique on it's apparent accuracy (or lack thereof) as well:









the props/shafts/rudders aren't permanently attached yet,BTW...

[RandyM]

1. Your work looks remarkably GOOD, based upon my understanding of how you executed the changes. I had originally considered this route but gave up because I did not trust myself to get the "skin" to look good.

2. You accomplished these great results in a very short period of time (relative to the amount my route required of me). Very impressive.

3. The only comment I have - and this is in no way meant to be critique - is that certain areas of the shape you have achieved are different from mine. For example the transition from "bottom" to "side" along the skegs appears to be a hard(er) corner. HOWEVER, I have learned over the course of this effort that very few people have access to primary source data (ie., offset tables) defining the design of the prototype... and they aren't talking. And there are even fewer people still who have first-hand (eye?) knowledge of how the ship looks in this area, and they also aren't talking. Interpreting nuances from available photographs - down to the desired level of accuracy - is simply not possible. Long story short: in my opinion your "version" looks much, much better than the kit, and you did it in an amazingly-short period of time. Bravo Zulu!

Randy

[Channell]

Thanks Randy! In all fairness this was my second attempt at modifications. I failed miserably with a new release Missouri kit last year and ended up waterlining it in frustration. I never finished it, mostly because I'm not a big fan of waterline models (it just feels like some important parts of the ship are missing when you do it that way! ) and just don't have the talent to make a convincing 1/200 seascape. So in reality you beat me.

I did find a nice couple of home videos of the New Jersey in drydock that were posted on Youtube which gave me the crazy idea of that sharp edge from the transition to the flat portion of the hull, but the video showed the edge more amidships, so I can't say it's accurate necessarily. I'd be interested to hear from someone who's seen it in real life. I also had to guess plenty on the exact curvature of that line around the flat bottom as the plans are frustratingly vague for that aspect of the hull; I imagine you had a similar problem?

But if nothing else it's invisible (sharp OR smooth) when the ship is right-side up and I'll be damned if I let anyone turn my future finished Iowa over to inspect the bottom! We outta collaborate some more with such similar projects going at the same time.

[Fliger747]

Looks really great Jason! About the only possible area that might be in contention is as mentioned the relatively hard chine transitioning to the flat bottom. Your skegs are narrower than mine, which means nothing as I had less information when I did those twenty plus years ago. Your fine hull job make the kit rudders look clunky.

Best regards. Tom