Calling all Iowa-class (BB-61) fans

[Timmy C]

Fifth photo down (DN-ST-91-12056.jpg) is during RIMPAC 1990 - there's a shot from a different angle on Navsource.

[Fliger747]

By "Docking Keel" I presume you mean the short stub keel at the fwd end of the "tunnel". The profile is shown as a dashed line in many of the available broadside general arrangement drawings, and the width discernible in many of the aft hull lines drawings.

[Thomas E. Johnson]

By "Docking Keel" I presume you mean the short stub keel at the fwd end of the "tunnel". The profile is shown as a dashed line in many of the available broadside general arrangement drawings, and the width discernible in many of the aft hull lines drawings.

Yes and thanks. I'll have to make it out of evergreen stock.

[marengtech]

Fifth photo down (DN-ST-91-12056.jpg) is during RIMPAC 1990 - there's a shot from a different angle on Navsource.

Thanks Timmy C, looks like I'll have to wait til I'm home to check it out, with what you have said that ship is HMCS Provider as HMCS Protectuer did not get to the west coast til 1996/97. Our server onboard is blocking it from viewing.

[Timmy C]

Gerry, here's the photo in case you can view it if it's hosted here:

It definitely looks like Provider, with the dip in the forecastle before the bridge.

[marengtech]

It sure is Provider, cool seeing her in a review with Missouri.

[steinerman]

Got another question folks. This is directed mainly to those gents that have access to one of the Iowa class battle wagons.

How wide are the grab irons on the ship? Here's the reason I'm asking. In the main forum, Tom Johnson asked if there was an easier way to attach grab irons. In one of the replies, Bob (Akula) mentioned that a hobby store in California, BLMA carried lots of grab irons for model train detailing. Being the curious sort, I Googled BLMA and went to their web page. Guess what! Not only do they have grab irons, they have DROP grab irons, which is much more realistic that the PE parts that are in the Pontos kit.

BUT - and there always is a but! they aren't the exact same size. They have (2) sizes for N scale trains (1:160). 15" scale drop grab irons made from .009" dia wire and 18" scale drop irons made from .007" dia wire.

.03mm is .00118 inches, which is MUCH smaller than either of these wire sizes. Also, 18" in N scale is 0.11" actual width, or, 22 inches wide on a 1:200 scale battleship. 15" in N scale is actually .094", which is 18.75" in 1:200 scale.

Would these look out of place on my 1:200 Missouri? I think drop grab irons would really be the cat's meow, but if they would look out of place, I don't want to consider them. The price isn't bad at all - $15.50 for a pack of 60 irons, and a template is only a little over $3. I'm thinking I might just get a set and se how they look. That's why I'd like to know what the actual width of the real ones are. I tried to measure the width of the ones in my Pontos set, but they look to be somewhere in the neighborhood of .07", or roughly 14". If that's the case, the 15" ones in N gauge might not look too bad - if the wire size isn't a killer.

Comments or suggestions, gentlemen???

[Thomas E. Johnson]

Got another question folks. This is directed mainly to those gents that have access to one of the Iowa class battle wagons.

How wide are the grab irons on the ship? Here's the reason I'm asking. In the main forum, Tom Johnson asked if there was an easier way to attach grab irons. In one of the replies, Bob (Akula) mentioned that a hobby store in California, BLMA carried lots of grab irons for model train detailing. Being the curious sort, I Googled BLMA and went to their web page. Guess what! Not only do they have grab irons, they have DROP grab irons, which is much more realistic that the PE parts that are in the Pontos kit.

2016-02-26_22-24-06.jpg

BUT - and there always is a but! they aren't the exact same size. They have (2) sizes for N scale trains (1:160). 15" scale drop grab irons made from .009" dia wire and 18" scale drop irons made from .007" dia wire.

.03mm is .00118 inches, which is MUCH smaller than either of these wire sizes. Also, 18" in N scale is 0.11" actual width, or, 22 inches wide on a 1:200 scale battleship. 15" in N scale is actually .094", which is 18.75" in 1:200 scale.

Would these look out of place on my 1:200 Missouri? I think drop grab irons would really be the cat's meow, but if they would look out of place, I don't want to consider them. The price isn't bad at all - $15.50 for a pack of 60 irons, and a template is only a little over $3. I'm thinking I might just get a set and se how they look. That's why I'd like to know what the actual width of the real ones are. I tried to measure the width of the ones in my Pontos set, but they look to be somewhere in the neighborhood of .07", or roughly 14". If that's the case, the 15" ones in N gauge might not look too bad - if the wire size isn't a killer.

Comments or suggestions, gentlemen???

PM Cliffy B on this forum. I believe he works on the Wisconsin often and would be happy to grab a tape measure for you.

[BB62vet]

The drop rung type of grabs are also available from Eduard in 1:200 scale. Item #53-125 - USS MISSIOURI Part 9 - Ladders. You have to bend the rungs once they're removed from the PE sheet. It comes with templates for drilling. I bought this set as a backup to the Pontos as the carpet monster has been hungry as of late. I intend to use them for the after and stern hull rungs.

[steinerman]

The drop rung type of grabs are also available from Eduard in 1:200 scale. Item #53-125 - USS MISSIOURI Part 9 - Ladders. You have to bend the rungs once they're removed from the PE sheet. It comes with templates for drilling. I bought this set as a backup to the Pontos as the carpet monster has been hungry as of late. I intend to use them for the after and stern hull rungs.

Thanks Hank! Exactly what I'm looking for.

[steinerman]

This is for Thomas Johnson. Seeing as how I don't know how to put pictures in PMs, I'll do this this way.

Tom wants to know what the Eduard Hull Plates PE set is and if he should put them on. I told him I'd post some pictures showing them on the ship and he could decide for himself as to whether or not he wanted to use them.

This first picture Tom, shows the hul plates (Cliffy says they're really called Butt Straps) on a model of the Iowa. As you can see, they're not obtrusive at all.

The next picture shows the hull of the Missouri where you can see the real plates. There are 2 rows of them running along the hull starting just front of the 16" turret #1 and extending back along the citadel.

Here's another photo showing these plates on one of the Iowa class Battleships.

Finally, here is Cliffy's diagram of how they should be placed. It does differ from the instructions that come with the Eduards PE set, but I'm inclined to believe Cliff over the boys at Eduards.

I hope this helps you a bit, Tom. Good luck on your ship, and why don't you start a WIP thread on your project? I'd love to see your progress.

[Cliffy B]

FYI, if you look at the diagram where it says 102" and you look to the right of the arrow you'll see an irregular line on the hull. That is some sort of damage that Wisky received at some point and NOT a plate line. It continues on forward further. Just clarifying in case anyone wonders

I helped someone measure the plate distances last Summer but I can't remember who. They made that diagram, I just helped

[Fliger747]

May have been for Hank. The butt straps join The STS plate which coincides with the extent of the internal side armor belt. This heavier plate was to provide external splinter protection. Note that they are almost flush riveted.

T

[Thomas E. Johnson]

Ah ok so this is the plating that people have eluded to! I was under the impression that this was an attempt to re-create the entire horizontal longitudinal hull plating along the entire sides of the whole ship! Now I know I better order a set of those plates from Eduard as they are clearly visible.

As for the hull plating itself, I still am not sure whether or not to add any, because if it is even slightly overdone it will look out of scale. Even in many pictures that I have looked at, they aren't always visible unless the light is hitting the plate line (I'm assuming that these are slightly raised welding lines) at an angle that highlights them.

[Harquebus]

Are there any clear photos of the docking keel so I can add it to my 1/200 hull?

Actual photos of the middle skeg/docking keel/support skeg for turret #3 might be abysmal as the aft end would be the only part visible while an IOWA is in dry dock. I wonder if there's historical photos of the skeg showing it under construction from the beginning?

Until those photos are forthcoming, I'm going to say that this is your definitive documentation of that feature:

viewtopic.php?f=47&t=4683&hilit=skeg&start=2520#p651504

Would it be too much to ask for the dimensions, Channell?

[Channell]

Are there any clear photos of the docking keel so I can add it to my 1/200 hull?

Actual photos of the middle skeg/docking keel/support skeg for turret #3 might be abysmal as the aft end would be the only part visible while an IOWA is in dry dock. I wonder if there's historical photos of the skeg showing it under construction from the beginning?

Until those photos are forthcoming, I'm going to say that this is your definitive documentation of that feature:

viewtopic.php?f=47&t=4683&hilit=skeg&start=2520#p651504

Would it be too much to ask for the dimensions, Channell?

In all honestly mine was just a "best guess" taken with some guidance from some scans of plans I found online. As I remember, the center docking keel ends at the back end of turret #3... it's purpose is actually to help support the very heavy turret assembly while in drydock.

Honestly, I would skip it entirely on a unmodified Trumpeter (or even 1/350 Tamiya) stern... The kit stern(s) is way off accuracy-wise anyway and adding it would not help the looks of the area.

[Thomas E. Johnson]

Good thing I am not a rivet counter.

[Fliger747]

The horizontal plate lines on the Iowa's hull do overlap in a strake built type manner, the exception to this is the (I believe 60# STS) plating which the butt straps are attached to. That seam appears to be flush welded. I would have to explore through references, but I believe that the rest of the external plate is 20# plate, which would be a fairly thin overlap (scale 1/2 inch +-) depending on your working scale. This has been simulated variously with masked primer etc. Unfortunately I haven't seen accurate hull plating plans turn up.

As a note, plans will sometimes show plating as 20#, 40# etc. 40 lb plate is 1" thick, that is 1" plate 1 sq ft.

Good Luck! T

[Thomas E. Johnson]

The horizontal plate lines on the Iowa's hull do overlap in a strake built type manner, the exception to this is the (I believe 60# STS) plating which the butt straps are attached to. That seam appears to be flush welded. I would have to explore through references, but I believe that the rest of the external plate is 20# plate, which would be a fairly thin overlap (scale 1/2 inch +-) depending on your working scale. This has been simulated variously with masked primer etc. Unfortunately I haven't seen accurate hull plating plans turn up.

As a note, plans will sometimes show plating as 20#, 40# etc. 40 lb plate is 1" thick, that is 1" plate 1 sq ft.

Good Luck! T

I don't think I'm going to include that detail, because if it isn't done right it will look over scale, like the riveted plating of the older style of construction.

[Cliffy B]

Do you guys need the docking plan for the class?