Calling all Iowa-class (BB-61) fans

[BB62vet]

BigJimSlade wrote:

That big black thing on the helipad is the platform on the mainmast. It was removed at some point and reinstalled.

That is almost correct, it is the main radar platform - IOWAs mainmast was torch cut into pieces for transit from her anchorage in Susan Bay to her permanent home at L.A. Ports. Can't recall why, but that explains the platform's locale on the after helipad. NEW JERSEY, on the other hand, transited all the way from Bremerton, WA, thru the Panama Canal, and up the eastern seaboard with her mast intact. Her radars were added later once on site.

Next week when I'm at my shop, I'll see if I can't find any other more detailed photos/drawings of her '80s mainmast/radar platform (although this isn't my era of interest) for posting.

Hope this helps,

Hank

[bigjimslade]

Two more questions:

1. Does anyone know of a photo of the forward stack taken from the rear, showing how the mast meets up with it?

2. Is the NJ's platform less pointed than that of there others?

Here on the Iowa, the forward edge looks like its is about 1-foot,.


I have yet to see a clear shot of the NJ but here it looks like the forward edge is about 4-feet.

[BB62vet]

BJS - let me take a moment to remind all that NEW JERSEY was the 1st of the 4 IOWAs and not necessarily the model for all 4 ships. Her mast "may" or "may not" be identical to the others, so you model at your own risk by assuming that her mast was identical to that of IOWA. This is a big mistake in my book - we were taught in the USN - NEVER assume anything except The Watch. That statement is fundamental, so take it for what it's worth...

Even though the hurricane has knocked out power and water to my workshop down east , I will try to get info about the NEW JERSEY's mast as soon as I can...

FYI - Getting back to IOWA - Have you seen the drone fly-over of the ship at her pier in LA Ports? Can't recall the website, but it is really cool. If you can find it, it should show her mast from above. Once again, reference only....!

Hope this helps...

[bigjimslade]

BJS - let me take a moment to remind all that NEW JERSEY was the 1st of the 4 IOWAs and not necessarily the model for all 4 ships. Her mast "may" or "may not" be identical to the others, so you model at your own risk by assuming that her mast was identical to that of IOWA.

I am using the NJ as the baseline for my computer model. There number of differences among the four is striking, but not all that surprising. A big difference is that main support for the mast on the others goes all the way to the secondary con level. On the NJ, it is supported by a extension midway up the fairing to the tower.

I would not be surprise that clear photo would show the NJ's platform has different shape. While the others have the same basic shape, on WI there is an extension aft, and MO's platform (that has the same shape as IA's) is see-thru (holes, screen)).

[Thomas E. Johnson]

I'm guessing that the 1991 Missouri 1/350 kit would be the better choice for a build of the Wisconsin of the same year?

[bigjimslade]

I'm guessing that the 1991 Missouri 1/350 kit would be the better choice for a build of the Wisconsin of the same year?

Probably. However, the bulwark on the NJ and MO are different from the WI and IA.

[Thomas E. Johnson]

I'm guessing that the 1991 Missouri 1/350 kit would be the better choice for a build of the Wisconsin of the same year?

Probably. However, the bulwark on the NJ and MO are different from the WI and IA.

That I know. I can glom the part out of the WWII Missouri kit. I'm guessing the Pontos conversion kit should take care of any deck differences......

[BB62vet]

BJS - Here is a photo of NJ I took on board in 2003 - the radars had not yet been replaced.

I will post a .pdf of the Alan B. Chesely's plan once I can get it scanned - it is as of 1983. Probably later today.

Hope this helps,

Hank

[bigjimslade]

That I know. I can glom the part out of the WWII Missouri kit. I'm guessing the Pontos conversion kit should take care of any deck differences......

Some day, someone has to put together a catalog of differences. Another other differences between WI and MO are:

1. WI has an extension on the radar platform.
2. MO has a see thru radar platform.
3. The forward phalanx platform on WI is squared off (unlike the others that are rounded).

[BB62vet]

BJS -

Still working on getting a good scan of the Chesley 1983 plans for NEW JERSEY.

Hank

[ArthurN]

Just a note for the rivet counters. The Missouri does not have the strakes on the side of the hull . The Tamiya kit has them moulded on but they should be removed if it is accuracy you are after.
It is a minor detail because I have also read the hull shape is wrong. From my point of view it makes absolutely no difference as anyone who know about battleships will always recognise the IOWAs whether the hull is 1 mm too long or too narrow or whatever. I still am a huge Tamiya fan

[bigjimslade]

Just a note for the rivet counters. The Missouri does not have the strakes on the side of the hull . The Tamiya kit has them moulded on but they should be removed if it is accuracy you are after.
It is a minor detail because I have also read the hull shape is wrong. From my point of view it makes absolutely no difference as anyone who know about battleships will always recognise the IOWAs whether the hull is 1 mm too long or too narrow or whatever. I still am a huge Tamiya fan

It's not a few inches of difference but changes in the shape. Here's a bow shot I found of the kit:



Here's a rendering of the shape:



On actual ship the half siding on the bottom continues all the way to the bow and up the curve. The Tamiya bottom is rounded before it gets to the bow.

The bow is much more knife edge than in the kit. This can be seen in photos:
https://research.archives.gov/id/6379758

The bigger problems are in the stern.


The keel is an obvious omission. Also, the skegs slope outwards. The skegs are not attachments to the hull but rather are integral with it. The Tamiya hull on the outside of the skegs follows the hull on the inside of the skegs. The kit compensates for that defect by adding the area that the prop runs into. Without that extension, the shafts would be way too long.

Also the half siding on the stern is muted and ends (comes to a point) under the hull when, in fact, it narrows and goes all the way up the stern.



Obviously modelers can and do live with these defects but they are much greater than being a few inches off. These defects are much more pronounced in the 1:200 Trumpeter that appears to have taken its hull shape off the Tamiya kit.

[Three Missouris]

Is there a us New Jersey kit 1/200 scale sold that is in the modern configuration?

[Thomas E. Johnson]

https://sub-driver.com/models/model-shi ... 1-200.html

[Three Missouris]

Thanks for the reply.
$615 dollars!.
I will have to wait for the "non-trending" price.

Cheeeesssshhhh

[Thomas E. Johnson]

Thanks for the reply.
$615 dollars!.
I will have to wait for the "non-trending" price.

Cheeeesssshhhh

That is the non-trend in price. This is a garage model kit. A commercial kit and in this scale of the modernized version doesn't yet exist.

[bigjimslade]

Thanks for the reply.
$615 dollars!.
I will have to wait for the "non-trending" price.

Cheeeesssshhhh

It's seems to me that is a reasonable price for a resin kit. The Trumpeter kit is over $300 throw in detail sets and you're spending way over $615.

That said, you'd think that someone offering a kit at that price would have better pictures so you can see what you are getting for that price.

[Aop Aur]

Did you make that 3D graphic hull render?

Aop

[bigjimslade]

Did you make that 3D graphic hull render?

Yep, that's mine, using tables from the original plans.

[Aop Aur]

What software did you use for that? It looks very good!

Aop