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

[Fliger747]

Hank:

Looks quite nice! I do have a couple of questions, did the 40 mm tubs aft the #2 stack have a raised steel deck above the wood deck or were these like the ones on the main deck with wood cary through? Another minor issue with the Trumpy kit is with the drop in the level of the rim of the deck around the bases of the 5" twin mounts. They got this wrong as it appears the deck drops here from profile drawings, the ship actually has about a 3-4" coaming at the deck edge, the actual deck being lower. The steel here is probably at the same level as the top of the wood, or possibly at a lower height of one plank thickness. I have some detail photos of this somewhere. There is definitely not a trench behind the mount base circle.

Will see if I can find some reference photos of these details.

BTW began working on the aircraft cranes for CB1, piece by piece from styrene.

Regards: Tom

[BB62vet]

Tom,

The 40mm tub aft of the stack were steel decked, not wood. See photo from 1945:

During her 1967-68 refit, these tubs (p/s) had a ready service locker added as well as a cable/hose reel attached on the outside of the after side of the tub, secured to the tub and deck. My model photo in the earlier post shows these reels and the ready service locker.

Here is a photo of IOWA in 1943 that somewhat better shows the same tubs and what I've described:

I will have to consult photos, plans, etc. regarding the issue you mention about the steel deck level in regards to the wood deck and the 5" gun mount bases.

Hank

[Fliger747]

A little obscured here, but the steel deck is at the same level on both sides of the coaming and the wood deck is on top, except at the edge which the steel decking (no wood) forms a waterway. The coaming extends all the way to the mount base. The waterway does extend around the back of the mount base. The trumpy kit is in error here and needs the decking around the mount base shimmed up to the steel deck lever on which the wood planking rests.

Cheers: Tom

[Fliger747]

Another not so great view: However you can see the steel deck level same on both sides, around the base of the mount there is a small waterway due to no wood applied.

Cheers: Tom

[BB62vet]

Tom,

I think I see what you're saying - see this photo of NJ @ LBeach 1981 pierside prior to work to modify her:

This shows the steel deck/wood deck at the 5" mount base fairly clearly.

Oh, re. the crane for your CB ALASKA - I'll look and see if my crane drawing (BuShips) is the correct one for CBs and if so, email you an attachment.

Hank

edit 8:56pm - A correction to this would possibly be a single layer of styrene cut to shape to raise the steel deck around the 5" mount base to the level of the exposed steel deck under the teak decking. However, before I do this I am going to consult my various ref. books for any further photo documentation of the exact way the deck levels are constructed.

[Fliger747]

The page 209 photo in Stillwell clearly shows the floor of the empty gun tub. I do have the FDD complete drawings for CB1. AS far as I can tell these cranes are unique to these ships. They have an unusual cylindrical tower, perhaps somewhat similar to those on seaplane tenders?

Cheers: Tom

[BB62vet]

I'll check out p. 209 in Stillwell when I get back to the shop.

10-4 on the cranes.

[Fliger747]

Hank:

Geez keep seeing new things I hadn't paid attention to before on these ships. Looks as if the 40 mm tubs (The ones Capt Schneider used for swimming pools) on the 01 level fwd had steel bottoms as well. I presume Trumpy got this right!

Some minor CB1 progress, began with working on the cranes. The lattice work for one crane, of styrene weighs in at less than 0/1000 oz!

Cheers: Tom

[BB62vet]

Tom wrote:

Geez keep seeing new things I hadn't paid attention to before on these ships. Looks as if the 40 mm tubs (The ones Capt Schneider used for swimming pools) on the 01 level fwd had steel bottoms as well. I presume Trumpy got this right!

Yea, and I've got a really good shot of that area of the stbd 01/02/03 bridge area (taken @ LBeach NSYD in 1981):

The two tubs were sealed and the port side tub filled w/water once during our cruise. Capt. Snyder actually took a swim in it (publicity purposes only!) and then it was emptied. The Med. Dept. put the Kybosh on that activity since they had no filtering system, etc. They were painted a light blue throughout the 68-69 commission. The stbd tub, "crew's pool", was never filled or used that I can recall.

I noticed further mods. needed to the bridge area and have done these changes to the stbd. side - I hope to finish the port side this coming week and then post new photos. As you say, always something to be rectified.

[Fliger747]

That photo does a great job of showing the awarthships inclined ladder between the 02 and 03 levels! Actually a great photo because a lot of "junk" is absent, revealing the basic structures well.

Cheers: Tom

[BB62vet]

I actually have 5 of those photos all taken the day NEW JERSEY was towed to the pier in L Beach in 1981. Before they got too far along, the lead structural guy, Richard Landgraff had one of his workers go up in one of the cranes and take photos of the ship "as is" so to speak. This was one of those photos. Being 8x10 b/w they came out extremely crisp and detailed.

Hank

[Fliger747]

Just noticed an awarthships passage I hadn't seen before at the aft end of the bridge level. Plated in on the current Missouri. It never ends!

Cheers. Tom

[Fliger747]

Hank:

Hope things are going well, just checking in on current progress. Summer always seems to be a slow time for ship builds. I should talk, getting nothing done on Missouri and slowly putzing away on Alaska, very slowly.

Best regards: Tom

[BB62vet]

Today/tonight I've begun work on modifying the after section of the kit hull to correct the distortions that have plagued this kit since day one. A couple other modelers have approached this problem from two different angles, both achieving what I would call "complete success" resulting in very, very nicely contoured hulls.

Having spent much time thinking about and researching various methods of demo/reconstruction I've decided on a course of action that I hope will result in a corrected hull form with as simple a process as possible in the course of this effort. We shall see...I have not described as yet the method I plan to use for this hull modification, but will do so in future posts.

I've drawn up a couple guides/gauges in CAD and will adhere printouts of these gauges to 1/8" thk. styrene sheets tonight in order to use these for laying out the frame locations on the outside of the hull. The fore/aft gauge for frame spacing will be a 2-piece affair to align the proper frame location (frame spacing = 4'-0" [1/4" @ 1:200 scale] along the centerline. The frames work in conjunction with their corresponding numbered section shape on the ship's body plan. For this exercise, I've decided to use the Sumrall hull drawing in the Floating Drydock's USS MISSOURI Plan Book for all dimensions, shapes, etc. The various body plan shapes at each frame will then be adhered to cardboard and cut out. These will be used to check the progress during the removal of excess plastic on the hull until the correct curvature has been achieved.

I hope to have a few new photos to post later this week, including the latest work I've been doing on the superstructure.

[Fliger747]

Going boldly forth! eep us informed as to the progress.

Regards: Tom

[Channell]

If I might be permitted to swim against the flow after having my opinion tempered by experience, could I humbly suggest you consider not doing it, Hank?

Yea, the stern is wrong but as a display piece it doesn't look too terribly bad (Consider this: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=159835)

On the other hand, chopping up and reshaping the hull was a crapton of work and I exhausted my enthusiasm for my project without getting much to show for my efforts in the end (really, who but a Iowa Class fanatic is gonna notice either way?). In my opinion, it was the work reshaping the bow that was the best "bang for (my) buck"... strangely enough and in it's own way, the wrong shaped stern almost looks better in scale than a more accurate shape... though 50+ hours of hard labor and self-doubt probably flavors my opinion on my Iowa.

Also, my first attempt to modify the Missouri hull in the way you described (by making templates and adding/removing material) was a complete failure... the kit stern is just too far off specs and really requires a complete rebuild.

I know I joked about it to the contrary on my thread but don't feel like you *have* to rebuild the hull to get a praiseworthy New Jersey. You're already there!

But if you must travel down this dark and scary path of fear and doom , I'd at least suggest lopping of the entire back 1/4 of the kit hull as cleanly as possible with a razor saw and rebuilding from the deck down like you are scratchbuilding a hull... that way you will have fewer headaches and can at least return to stock should the project go South without needing to buy another $350.00 kit.

Best of luck either way, I'll be interested to see how things go on your NJ!

[Mgunns]

I know I joked about it to the contrary on my thread but don't feel like you *have* to rebuild the hull to get a praiseworthy New Jersey. You're already there!

But if you must travel down this dark and scary path of fear and doom , I'd at least suggest lopping of the entire back 1/4 of the kit hull as cleanly as possible with a razor saw and rebuilding from the deck down like you are scratchbuilding a hull... that way you will have fewer headaches and can at least return to stock should the project go South without needing to buy another $350.00 kit.

Best of luck either way, I'll be interested to see how things go on your NJ!

Sound advice from someone who has been there. I would ask myself, 'is this going to be worth the effort?" "Will anyone, besides myself know or care?"
Hank: You are doing noteworthy and praiseworthy on this project, unless you are prepared and willing this could be an unmotivator. I with you the best of luck with this project. Only you can you know.
S/F

[BB62vet]

Tom, Jason, MGunns,

Thanks for the advice, admonitions, cheers, and warnings, AND compliments! As Capt. Kirk (or was that Capt. Crunch ) so aptly stated: Boldly going where no man has gone before! - er....few men....

Well, the die is cast, gentlemen - However, as I've outlined to Tom, once I've marked the frame spacing on the hull and have the various frame templates ready for use, I will determine at THAT time whether or not the direction I'm going will give me the desired results. That should be sometime next week. If it appears that the minimal removal of lower hull area is not sufficient to get the job done, then I will re-evaluate the modification before it's too late.

Sorry, no pix at this time - I'm still trying to re-adjust the camera from our NYC trip last month. FYI - there is a really good article on model photography in this quarter's Nautical Research Guild Journal - of course, I forgot it last Sunday so I hope to make use of it's advice this coming week. Duh!!!!

Once again, I really appreciate your continued interest in my project - Thanks!

Hank

[Mgunns]

Hello Hank:

Whatever you decide, I will be watching with interest and cheering you on.

[BB62vet]

Well, I was going to post an updated photo of the superstructure, but something is not working right. Stay tuned....

edit - I guess I'll have to wait until I'm home tonight - things here are not working properly.