Calling all Iowa-class (BB-61) fans

[Thomas E. Johnson]

The exact dimensions of the 5" mounts can be found in the HNSA turret and mount catalog. Properly dimensioned 5" twin mounts can be found in both 1;192 and 1:200 from Steve "Model Monkey" Larson's offerings at Shapeways. I do not believe the Trumpeter mounts have the proper front shape and dimension.

Cheers: Tom

If your building 1/200 model yeah, but I'm working with the 1/350. But should I find that I want to build the 1/200 model, thank you for educating me that the kit 5 inch gun houses are wrong and need replacing.

[Fliger747]

Yes, you can check out the dimensionality with the HNSA drawings if that is of interest. I have heard fewer complaints about the accuracy of the 1:350 models.

Good Luck with your project!

T

[Harquebus]

If your building 1/200 model yeah, but I'm working with the 1/350. But should I find that I want to build the 1/200 model, thank you for educating me that the kit 5 inch gun houses are wrong and need replacing.

Contact Model Monkey and have him re-size the 5"/38's to 1/350. Oh wait, he already has two versions in 1/350.

https://www.shapeways.com/product/NU4BT ... d=57600863
https://www.shapeways.com/product/M7RL7 ... d=57593795

You should buy a sample set and photograph all three together for comparison.

[ModelMonkey]

It appears that Trumpeter erroneously put 5"/38 Mk.32 mounts meant for cruisers and aircraft carriers in the 1/200 Missouri and Iowa kits instead of the much heavier Mk.28 mounts used on battleships.

They are noticeably different dimensionally. The most noticeable difference is the glacis (front armor). The Mk.28 mount's lower vertical face is much taller than the Mk.32s. That's the dead giveaway.

But not only is the glacis different, the Mk.28 mounts are 3-1/2 scale inches taller. The different glacis is easily noticeable in 1/350. The height difference is negligible in 1/350.

The extra height of the real Mk.28 mount is accounted for in two ways:

1) the roof is 3" higher measured from the centerline of the guns
2) the floor is 1/2" lower measured from the centerline of the guns

Presumably, these differences are due to the Mk.28 mount's thicker armor.

In the drawing below, you can see the Mk.28 battleship mount on top, the Mk.32 cruiser and aircraft carrier mount in the middle, and the Mk.38 mount for Sumner and Gearing class destroyers at bottom.

Photos indicate that the twin mount for Wind class Coast Guard cutters was a Mk.32 mount or one similar.

[lgmccauley]

Thanks for responding Larry. I do have plenty of other sources besides Stefan's book and the FDD plans. I just purchased Stilwell's book, already have FDD's Missouri Plan Book both in paper copy and CD, Summeral's Iowa Class Battleships and various other books on the Iowa's. There is also all the information available on previous postings. I just thought Stefan's book did an excellent job of providing the three dimensional views of most of the equipment a modeler would be interested in with the understanding that it is not the bible on the subject and you should use other resources, as you have pointed out and I fully agree.

I have started to carve the hull and am having a lot of "fun" with the tunnel and the skegs. The hull is made of basswood in the bread and butter arrangement. It will probably take a couple of weeks to complete.

Got any snow in Grand Rapids? I left it all behind in Cleveland 23 years ago when I moved to Athens, GA. Don't regret one bit, especially after watching the news lately.

Larry

[ModelMonkey]

Here's how the 3D design software I use "sees" the two different 5"/38 mounts I offer in 1/350 scale (and other scales, too).

The Mk.32 for cruisers and aircraft carriers is on top. The next two images are of the Mk.28 for battleships. You can see how the glacis is very different.

Notice the accurate access hatch, hinge and bolt details, all properly sized and positioned according to measurements of an actual mount posted earlier in this thread. Also notice rangefinder and viewfinder shutter door actuating arms on the top of the armored rangefinder hoods.

A separate trunnion slotted for brass barrels allows for the modeler to choose any realistic elevation. The trunnion is inserted into position through an opening in the mount's bottom. There is a bottom plate with integrated barbette of the correct height for USS Missouri (shown inverted) that is then closed. Once complete, the seam is invisible.

[Thomas E. Johnson]

The Mark 32 gun housing appears to be what the veterans models resin ones are duplicating.

[MatthewB]

So, will those Mk 28s have Blast bags available for the barrels?

I have yet to get any Mk. 28 5"/38 mounts for the SoDak or Washington, as I only have the Veteran Mk. 32 Twin mounts (which all need to have one of the holes in the Blast bags drilled out for the brass barrels).

MB

[ModelMonkey]

So, will those Mk 28s have Blast bags available for the barrels? [snip]
MB

No, just the mounts.

Looking forward to your SoDak and Washington builds! Those are favorites.

[Fliger747]

Note that at the time of the surrender that Missouri did not carry bloomers on her 5" twin mounts, though the bucklers and arched supports were still mounted. Also note that canvas chute covers were installed over a bar framework over the 5: mount case ejection ports. Reference photo page 34, USS Missouri; Stilwell.

T

[Thomas E. Johnson]

If I remember correctly, The boot topping on the Iowa class is wider at the bow because the bow rides higher in the water when the ship is at light load?

[Fliger747]

Generally this is true, though the position and width of the boot top varies with the ship and the time period. This was discussed some time back with I believe some ship dimensions and dates discussed. The one to never use is the decommissioned mothball or museum ship lines. In effect the ship carried much more disposable weight forward and lacked hull volume aft due to the need for flow to the propellers. Empty Missouri rides more than ten feet higher at the bow but at about the DWL at the stern.

[Thomas E. Johnson]

Generally this is true, though the position and width of the boot top varies with the ship and the time period. This was discussed some time back with I believe some ship dimensions and dates discussed. The one to never use is the decommissioned mothball or museum ship lines. In effect the ship carried much more disposable weight forward and lacked hull volume aft due to the need for flow to the propellers. Empty Missouri rides more than ten feet higher at the bow but at about the DWL at the stern.

You wouldn't by chance remember what the draft lines for the ship were in the 1980s and early 90s would you, before I start searching through this entire thread again?

[Cliffy B]

Wisky is currently sitting at 24' at the bow and about 30' at the stern if I remember correctly. I can confirm later this week.

[Thomas E. Johnson]

Wisky is currently sitting at 24' at the bow and about 30' at the stern if I remember correctly. I can confirm later this week.

I'm building the 1991 Missouri and I need to know what the draft lines for the topping should be in the late 80s early 90s. Tamiya just shows it painted as uniform from bow to stern.

[Fliger747]

I should know this off hand as I scratch built (99.5% done) 1991 Missouri. However to misquote Bubba; "I don't recall". It is I believe a quite wide (8'?) constant width as shown p 404 Stillwell, Missouri. I do have several hundred photos of the ship in her current condition, which is not always 100% applicable and certainly not applicable as to the boot top during her active duty.

Cheers: T

[Cliffy B]

Wisky is currently sitting at 24' at the bow and about 30' at the stern if I remember correctly. I can confirm later this week.

I'm building the 1991 Missouri and I need to know what the draft lines for the topping should be in the late 80s early 90s. Tamiya just shows it painted as uniform from bow to stern.

Alrighty, I'll take photos of the 3 sets of draft markings as best I can this weekend. I'll see what the blueprints show too.

[Thomas E. Johnson]

The in-service full load displacement waterline is easy. That part of it is straight. The light-load displacement line is the one that is going to a vary. If I know what the light-load depth at both the bow and the stern are, then I'd imagine I can just do the math and strike a line on the hull in order to apply the masking tape to.

[Cliffy B]

FYI DO NOT use Missouri's current state to replicate the boot top! They painted it out to make it appear she's at full load even though she's at light so it's wrong number one and number two just plain looks bad in my opinion.

[Thomas E. Johnson]

FYI DO NOT use Missouri's current state to replicate the boot top! They painted it out to make it appear she's at full load even though she's at light so it's wrong number one and number two just plain looks bad in my opinion.

Oh I know. I know from in service pictures where the waterline at full load should be.