The Ship Model Forum

I'm not sure what you mean.... it sounds like you are saying the boot curves and has slope, which I can believe if we are talking relative to the hull plating. But relative to the baseline it should be parallel everywhere, right?

Randy, from this photo of the Iowa it seems to me the top of boot top is just above the lower row of discharge ports. See the two lower discharge streams from the side of the battleship just behind the stern of the oiler:



http://navsource.org/archives/01/061/016133.jpg

_________________
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.

On the Iowa class the towers for 3 of the MK37 Directors (over the bridge, on either side of the fore funnel) has a entry hatch at the base of the tower. But I am not sure if there is a similar hatch on the base of the tower of the 4th mk37 director at the rear of the superstructure because this tower is much shorter than the other three. If it had a hatch the hatch would have to be much closer to the rotating structure of the director.

Does anyone know if tower for the rear mk37 director also has a deck level entry hatch?

_________________
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.

Perfect photo! That matches up well with the location of the ports on my hull with the top of the boot at 37 feet - THANKS!

Chuck, there is an access hatch on the rear MK37 director foundation and it is at a different height.
Forward director (Iowa):


Midship director:(Missouri)


Aft director (Iowa):


James

Re. Boot Toppings (Waterlines) etc:

There are two (2) levels for boot toppings - (1) operational when the ship is in commission (2) In Reserve when the ship is in a "mothball" state of preservation. All four IOWAs are now presently in the In Reserve scheme. (Those are my terms, since they make sense to me!)

The differences are obvious - when the ship is in operational commission you have all the fuel, provisions, ammunition, personnel on board and that combined weight affects the trim and performance of the ship. Therefore, the operational waterlines are HIGHER than the In Reserve waterlines. When warships go into drydock to prepare them for decommissioning (mothballs), their waterlines are repainted at a lower level and the draft marks are repainted accordingly.

The previous answers as to where (dimensionally) the waterline should go I can't address today (not at my shop), but I do recall comparing the various Booklet of General Plans of MISSOURI (1950), WISCONSIN (1956) and NEW JERSEY (1967) - they are not all quite the same. The Floating Drydock plan for NEW JERSEY (1967) is slightly different from the BGP but I am using TFD's plan for my model. This shows a constant boot topping from end to end without any difference in width (as some plans may show). This is also consistent with photos I have of the ship in drydock in Philly (1967) and Bremerton (1969) prior to being repainted for her In Reserve status.

I don't know of any blueprints available to the modeler that would show the lower waterlines; all I've ever seen are the plans for ships IN commission.

I would also agree that the operational waterline would be BELOW any overboard discharge pipes on the sides of the ship.

Hope this helps,

Hank

_________________
HMS III
Mocksville, NC
BB62 vet 68-69

Builder's yard:
USS STODDARD (DD-566) 66-68 1:144, Various Lg Scale FC Directors
Finished:
USS NEW JERSEY (BB-62) 67-69 1:200
USN Sloop/Ship PEACOCK (1813) 1:48
ROYAL CAROLINE (1748) 1:47
AVS (1768) 1:48

My comment about the boot top and waterline at the stern refers not so much to the exact height from the keel as how well it's height matches the as built model hull. Certainly when we refer to the width of the boot top we are using a short hand for the difference between the vertical distances from the base line. It is just at the stern, because of the slanting of the contour here, that any differences between the model hull dimensionality and spec waterline would be apparent.

Interesting that the access hatches at the base of the director towers are curved!

Cheers: Tom

Question vis a vis the aft mk 37 director hatch? Is that hatch actually lower or had the deck height been raised here during all the modernizations and installation of the missile deck? Not at home and planless... T

That's the original deck, hatch and bulkhead in the picture.
The very aft end of the platform was raised to make room for the helo control station, you can just make out the step.

Thanks: I was aware of the small aft platform.

Regards: T

I am now back on my desktop w/plans & photos.

Re. Boot Toppings:

USS MISSOURI (1950) - B. of Gen. Plans - Note above Upper Line of Boot Topping - "Upper line of Boot Topping - 37'-6" Above Bottom of Keel"
same plan- Note below Service Line (dotted) of Boot Topping - "Light Service (word unreadable) & Lower Limit of Boot Topping - 36'-6" Above Bottom of Keel".

34'-7 1/4" is the DWL at the stern of the plan (Draft Water Line) and is the Lower limit of the Boot Topping; also the same at the bow of the plan.

Light Service Line is what I've been calling the In Reserve (mothballs) water line.

USS WISCONSIN (1956) - B. of Gen. Plans - 34'-7 1/4" DWL at stern of plan - no other notations on plan. Fwd. dimension is unreadable, but Boot Topping width widens as it goes forward.

USS NEW JERSEY (1982) - B. of Gen. Plans - 34'-7 1/4" DWL at stern of plan - Top of Boot Topping; same dimension at bow but width of Boot Topping increases (no dimension). No further notes or dimensions (drawing has been dumbed down).

As stated earlier, I will not use the B.G.P. dimensions on my model but will take the dimensions from The Floating Drydock plan I have of NJ in 1967-68.

Hank

_________________
HMS III
Mocksville, NC
BB62 vet 68-69

Builder's yard:
USS STODDARD (DD-566) 66-68 1:144, Various Lg Scale FC Directors
Finished:
USS NEW JERSEY (BB-62) 67-69 1:200
USN Sloop/Ship PEACOCK (1813) 1:48
ROYAL CAROLINE (1748) 1:47
AVS (1768) 1:48

Hank:

The mothball boot topping is almost ten feet lower at the bow than at the stern. Not being at home, but I have seen photos of Missouri at Bremerton with a boot top that closely matches the one it has at Pearl today. The bow draft empty is only 27 ft or so though the stern seems to remain about the same. However the ship in Bremerton mothball did for much of the time retain a great deal of fuel in her bunkers, which was finally removed at some time or another for other uses. It may or may not have been the heavy bunker oil. There are some drydock photos on line of Missouri at Pearl before her movement to the current battleship row mooring.

Due to the fine hull lines these ships do lack hull volume aft despite above waterline appearances otherwise. Due to the mostly flat bottom issues between baseline and keel point are mostly eliminated for us!

I think your "mothball waterline" term is a useful one and probably different from a light load one.

Regards: Tom

So... right or wrong, here's my version. Boot top measures 2.22" from bottom of hull (give or take ) and will be 4-scale-feet in height. The upper edge is (will be) just above the upper extreme of the lower discharge ports. Please excuse the messy workbench as I'm in the thick of things with this monster of a hull. The focs'l is coming along - so far I am really enjoying the Pontos materials. While it's true they don't provide step-by-step exploded views of how to put things together, I just consider this part of the challenge. In other words, I'm currently unconvinced all the negative comments regarding their (lack of) instructions are warranted. We'll see in a few weeks.

Tom... I think the last photo addresses your comments?

Looking good and great progress!

T

Randy - Excellent work!!! I'm especially impressed with the fact that your hull is smooth and evenly finished from one end to the other. For some reason your dimension of 2.22" seems close if not right on the mark from what I have penciled in on my plans on the shop wall. So, we'll be very close in the end.

Tom - You are probably correct in that the "Light Load WL" and Mothball waterline are different. I do have two photos of NEW JERSEY's bow in drydock - the first, 1967 after painting for her COMMISSSIONING. The second, 1969 after painting for her DECOMMISSIONING. The draft marks are different as well as the WLs, so they both change respectively depending on the status of the ship.

Hank

_________________
HMS III
Mocksville, NC
BB62 vet 68-69

Builder's yard:
USS STODDARD (DD-566) 66-68 1:144, Various Lg Scale FC Directors
Finished:
USS NEW JERSEY (BB-62) 67-69 1:200
USN Sloop/Ship PEACOCK (1813) 1:48
ROYAL CAROLINE (1748) 1:47
AVS (1768) 1:48

I might also add that Xmas has been really good to me BB'wise:

1) my modeler/machinist friend has provided me with (5) machined brass Pelorus based on the drawing I provided him. These are slightly less than 3/8" high and

2) the special order Pontos Decking has arrived and is really nice - they did an excellent job on working w/me on making this available. Also included were the additional brass whip antennae and replacement PE sheets that I had been requesting.

3) Duplicolor primer was purchased based on Randy's recommendation as the Tester's primer did not prove very useful or lasting in an early test I did on it last year.

4) I now have The Endless River (Pink Floyd) and The Hollies Greatest Hits to add to the music suite once I'm back at the shop, also.

_________________
HMS III
Mocksville, NC
BB62 vet 68-69

Builder's yard:
USS STODDARD (DD-566) 66-68 1:144, Various Lg Scale FC Directors
Finished:
USS NEW JERSEY (BB-62) 67-69 1:200
USN Sloop/Ship PEACOCK (1813) 1:48
ROYAL CAROLINE (1748) 1:47
AVS (1768) 1:48

I'll be very interested in your Pontos deck. The very limited experience I have is that a) it is extremely well-detailed and b) it fits very well. Having said that, for some reason I had to "enlarge" the forward half of turret 1's hole due to clearance issues: to the rear of the turret everything was fine, and to the front of it ditto if the deck was not placed down over the barbette. But to get it to lay perfectly flat I had to remove ~ 1/16" of material from the front half of the hole.

1/16" is a lot, a scale foot onboard. Wood products are not dimensionally stable, especially along the grain direction. Ply type products somewhat better though possibly less predictable. Humidity differential between place of mfgr and especially at your workbench will make some difference. In the winter a reduced humidity indoors due to heating will cause some shrinkage. I am actually amazed that they can fit as well as they do. Leaving your deck raw?

T

Randy/Tom:

I'm rather surprised that the fit on your deck (Randy) is not correct - this is the first comment I've heard about this on the forum re. the Pontos MO decking. Your assumption re. the environmental changes in the deck may very well be legitimate.

I won't know about the fit for a while - I'm going to acclimate the decking to the workshop environment a couple days or so before taking stock of its fit on the deck itself. I don't want to pick apart everything until I decide on a finish to apply to all the deck parts.

There is a thread re. wooden decks on the Main Forum that is discussing this issue and I do plan to finish my wooden deck parts PRIOR to installing them. The color on my decks is really good in comparison to color photos of the decks on NEW JERSEY in the late '60s - very close. But, unfinished, I don't think is the way to go. They need some type of treatment to keep their appearance and stability.

_________________
HMS III
Mocksville, NC
BB62 vet 68-69

Builder's yard:
USS STODDARD (DD-566) 66-68 1:144, Various Lg Scale FC Directors
Finished:
USS NEW JERSEY (BB-62) 67-69 1:200
USN Sloop/Ship PEACOCK (1813) 1:48
ROYAL CAROLINE (1748) 1:47
AVS (1768) 1:48

The only thing I can add to the expansion theory is that the extremely thin wood veneer is held via adhesive to a very thick (in comparison) plastic substrate. I have to believe the plastic is much more stable over temperature than the wood - even assuming this type of wood is that unstable over this temperature/humidity range. Also, this afternoon I cut out the aft deck and it fits perfectly - they are about the same length, so I would expect any environmental effects to affect both pieces in a like manner.

Please don't infer too much from my experience - first of all I probably trimmed closer to 1/32 than 1/16 as originally stated. I had assumed hat even with the slight mismatch, the decking could have been successfully applied - the concern I had was whether it would STAY applied over time - it was just enough to cause the decking to "pinch" along the centerline. I recently asked Kelly Quirk whether his deck is still "down" and it is. I have not yet asked him whether he had a similar observation to me re: fit.