Calling all Iowa-class (BB-61) fans

[Channell]

Great work Randy! I suspect you'll see what I saw when I tried to do this in the real world with cardboard cutouts but this will be much easier to digest.

The stern of the kit is really far off below the waterline but it's pretty close to spot-on from the waterline up, (ecept maybe too much bulge at the waterline on the stern, which can be mitigated by filing down the hull in this area).

All I can say is thank god for waterlining... though I wish I cold figure out how to do some realistic water in this scale!

(insert random cussing and Trumpter hate here)

[rtwpsom2]

Randy, if you need/want some help turning that into a solid model let me know. I know a few tricks for hulls.

[Timmy C]

I wonder how much it would cost to have the aft third of the hull be 3D printed by Shapeways, since you already have the CAD for it...

[Fliger747]

Rob

Have you ever considered making your planes flyable for Flight Sim. I work with a number of three d designers to make the planes flyable. For FS skins are made to coat the surface using photoshop techniques, allowing a number of paints for the same aircraft.

Cheers. Tom

[RandyM]

To rtwpsom2: funny you should mention this. As a complete SW rookie, I have been trying to use a lofted surface. This works pretty well but in some areas - particularly up by the bow and back around the tunnel - it twists into something strange. When I try to go in and fix it using the connectors, it usually blows up (which results in my becoming frustrated...). Last night I tried using boundary surfaces and freeform on a small section, but this actually crashed SW (v2014) twice, so I gave up. I would dearly welcome any suggestions/help you may have.

Timmy: I happen to have access to a 12x12x12 3D printer... so I'm right there with you. The problem is, ours works with ABS at 0.007" tolerance, which means the surface "texture" can be that large. And working with ABS (eg., sanding/polishing) is a pretty significant PITA.

[rtwpsom2]

Randy, as a CAD guy I don't typically share my models so if you don't want to share I totally get it. However if I could see how you have set up your sketches it might help to come up with a solution. I know how I would do it, but that doesn't mean you and I would do it the same or that either of us would necessarily be right/wrong.

[Timmy C]

It's probably not as accurate as doing it manually the old fashioned way, but today I learned AutoDesk has a free program called 123D Catch that processes a series of photos you take around a given object and converts that into a 3D model: http://www.123dapp.com/catch#download

Might be worth trying on the kit, Randy?

[BB62vet]

Randy,

Excellent work!!! While the results are not what I was hoping to hear, I have one further question - could you post a screen shot of the hulls superimposed over each other in the same orientation as your first post? That way we could all see the overall results of your comparison between the FDD drawings and the kit hull.

So, playing Devil's Advocate - I'm wondering if someone could take the kit hull and remove the stern vertically from say, a given frame aft of turret 3, replacing it with a scratchbuilt correctly modeled stern OR whether it would be better to remove the same portion of the stern but only from say, the upper waterline horizontally and then vertically to the bottom at the same frame? This would leave the upper stern of the kit hull intact from the waterline up in order to provide the structural integrity of the hull while ridding the model of the misshaped portion.

All opinions welcomed at this point.........

Hank

[RandyM]

More results. This time I looked at the bow area of the kit. I've developed a routine:
1. either scan the kit part directly or use a contour gauge
2. if necessary, scan the contour gauge
3. import the image into Photoshop and rectify (I don't know how to rotate sketch images in SW). This aligns the image on the (x,y) axes.
4. import the image into SW and scale it using direct measurements of the actual part. This should remove most accuracy errors of the previous steps, at least for my purposes.
5. Trace the image onto the correct plane (location) in SW.
6. Compare the results.

In this case I taped the two bow pieces together and scanned them directly, then determined two locations corresponding to the ship's stations: 1/2 and 4. For reference, station 1/2 is located 1.85" from the extreme kit bow while station 4 is located 6.36" from the same point.

As you'll see, the deck profile is extremely close to the blueprint - in fact given margin for error in my work it's probably safe to assume that it's dead on.

The two station profiles are not quite so nice, unfortunately, but - and this is MY OPINION - they are close enough for government work (which, for the record, is an absurd statement: my government customers have exacting standards). For example, on the Station 4 image shown below, the maximum horizontal discrepancy is 0.166" or 33" in prototype terms. Not a big deal IMHO. BUT... this happens to be in an area of the hull where the prototype looks so elegant, and this additional mass (width) tends to soften the effect somewhat.

FWIW, this effort - the deck profile and two station profiles - took me three hours which is why things progress slowly. So bear with me as I work through this. I'll try to look amidships this weekend. My plan is to get a general idea by picking a couple stations here and there along the hull, then fill in the gaps with complete data as time permits.

ENJOY.

[Fliger747]

Rather amazing how thin the bow is, though this is apparent from bow on shots. Makes me feel a bit better about the issues in my 1:192 hull. Thomas F Walkowiak does nice drawing. Anyone have any idea about his source of hull lines and comparisons to say Sumrall or Raven? Are they all the same?

Thanks for the continuing updates. Tom

[RandyM]

Ok, so this weekend brought fantastic weather - even for San Diego - so I didn't do that much on this project. But... here's what I did manage to get done:

- Scanned the hull at the maindeck edge, rectified/imported/scaled/traced it. This is really what's important to me since, as mentioned previously, if this profile is goofed up I wouldn't want to mess with the hull. The good news is that for all intents and purposes, Trumpeter got this shape dead to rights. The first image below shows the two profiles (Floating Drydocks blueprints and scan of the kit hull) overlaid on one another. At this image size you can't see both curves, so the following two images show close-ups of fore and after sections. When a comparison comes up this close, this is well within the error margin given all that I have to do to get the two curves.

- profiled a mid-ships station, in this case station 23 which is about 30 inches from the bow. The results are shown in the final image. Again, these are so close they may as well be identical. Also, given that the kit hull is "relaxed" - no deck installed (I haven't even opened that box yet), the major angles could be off somewhat.

Anyway, you get the idea. All in all, I think Trumpeter did a pretty darned good job on the hull. Yes, the stern is "off" and the bow is too thick, but it's my favorite 1/200 Iowa by far.

To Hank (or "@Hank" - I'm just not that cool)... I've begun working on surfacing the blueprint hull - this is a fairly major ordeal for newcomers to SolidWorks, especially on so complex a shape. Once I get that and more station profiles of the kit, I'll do just that.

Randy

PS: I added an image to the end which shows the current state of "my" art at surfacing...

[BB62vet]

Randy,

I've been following this thread - Great Job!!! I believe it's helping all of us building this kit. I think you've "proved" the hull, as some would call it. I will be interested in seeing the overlays once you've posted them. Your solid modeling of the hull - I thought I was looking at the kit hull - very convincing!!!

Bottom line - I don't think the inaccuracies outweigh the overall shape of the hull. I'm going to leave intact and move on. I may place a stage or camel at waterline level opposite Turret 3 in order to distract the eye from the lower hull at that point; beyond that, it is what it is! Besides, I'm not sure that delving into tearing up the hull with my limited styrene experience would serve a positive purpose and I've got a respectable amount of $$ tied up in this one.

Hank

[stevegallacci]

I suspect you'll find some of the greatest departure in basic shapes between the hull sections around the point where the outboard screw shaft comes out of the hull. I did a basic contour gauge versus published drawing (Stillwell's "Battleship New Jersey") and it was fierce.
As far as producing a fix, a straight splice of the aft hull might be the best way to capture the shapes, it would also be the trickiest for alignment and kit deck fit. Dimensional stability may also complicate things with molds and castings. Not saying it can't be done, but it will take some real care in getting something that isn't as much work as a hack and putty conversion. I'm wondering about a bit of added structure that can attach to the deck and forward hull to keep things straight and level, providing extra alignment for the new hull section fit, even if the hull is a bit off due to warp or shrinkage.

[Fliger747]

Quite interesting. I wonder if a waterline down cut and conversion would work? The upper hull would provide the deck continuity and structural support. Perhaps one could fill the hull with a non expanding foam aft or some such and cut off the offending area and whittle down from there. For static models which remain in a narrow temperature range it is possible material stability will be less of an issue than for the RC crowd.

For the Trumpy guys I would encourage at a minimum adding the hull gusset plates along the upper sides, a subtle detail that adds enough to the hull to fit well with the feast of topside minutia. I think I sent to Hank the frame positions for these, not sure if I still have the data after I added mine. Since they are not on the drawings I researched them from many photos.

Cheers: Tom

[Builder 2010]

This is for Kiwi96. When I saw you bow pictures on the last page and didn't know the scale, I thought it was 1:350 and nearly had a heart attack. How in the world did he find rail stanchions in that scale and then thread them with wire. I then searched you out and found your Photobucket pics and learned that it was a 1/96 scale and was relived. Good work! I envy folks that get the chance to work in larger scales on Iowa ships. That's a great scale and a great ship. My problem would simply be no where to put it.

[anj4de]

Hello all

Quick question on 1/700 Iowa class ships. Can anybody summarize which kits are the better ones or is there a comparison thread here somewhere? How do the Trumpeter and Tamiya offereings compare to each other...apart from the period they display.

thanks
Uwe

[Builder 2010]

Hi Uwe, it's me again...

When the Tamiya kits were molded, they didn't use slide molds to put openings perpendicular to the sides of the mold cavity, so details like portholes on the all the side bulkheads on the superstructure are missing and you have to use after market PE (or drill your own) to give portholes where they're missing. Trumpeter, being a newcomer does use these techniques and gives more molded-in detail. On the other hand, Tamiya's kits are engineered better and usually have better fits. Tamiya instructions are better also. Trumpeter has the two-piece hull concept where you can have a water-line model. I have two Trumpeter carriers waiting to be built. If and when they're done I will be more competent in making these comparisons.

[Cliffy B]

I can offer an opinion on the 1980's versions available from both as I have one of each; BUY THE TAMIYA ONE!!!!!!! It may have detail-less bulkheads but it measures our correctly and all the parts are properly shaped, sized, and placed. All it needs is some detailing (GMM and WEM have PE for them) and she's golden! The Trumpy kits may have bulkhead detailing but its not very accurate at all. Some suffer from the "we never looked at a photo of the real thing and just slapped some random ladders and what not on and called it a day" syndrome....not cool!

The only major issue you'll have with either is the flight deck is not elevated above the main deck like on the real ships and the unique helo parking areas are not addressed at all. ALL of them depict BB-62 and BB-62 only. Look at photos of the after main decks to see what I mean. All 4 ships had different layouts of wood/non-skid. Raising the flight deck and adding the ramps that lead helos from it to the main deck is simple. Re-scribing the deck is another issue. One approach is to buy a generic wooden deck sheet and cut your own. That's what I'm about to do to replicate BB-64's deck since she had full wood and no non-skid save for the flight deck and the ramps. The parking area was ALL wood with tie downs. In my opinion she looks the best with that layout. Some photos of BB-63 for example show the entire stern up to the superstructure as non-skid; YUCK! But I digress.

I can tell you from my experience walking the decks of BB-64 on a weekly basis that the Tamiya kit is one you want. It will take A LOT of scratch building and detailing work to get the Trumpy kits looking nice. Detailing is one thing. Having to remove and add/move/correct almost every deck and bulkhead detail is NOT a good thing.

Also like Builder said, the fit is MILES better with the Tamiya kit. The deck is 3 pieces but once you glue the hull together and to the waterline plate, you don't even notice the deck is 3 pieces. It has about a 0.25mm worth of slop in it and I have to use a pair of pliers to grab onto the turret lugs to remove the pieces. I'd love it if Trumpy would have decks with fit that good and they have one piece hulls!

Obviously it all boils down to how accurate of a kit you want and how much work you want to put it into but in all honest the Tamiya kit out of the box blows the Trumpy kit out of the water even if it waterline only which is the only real strike against the Tamiya kit.

-Mike

[Timmy C]

The major error with Trumpeter's kits of 61, 63, and 64 is that they did not make the ECM housing at the top correctly - they make it as though it's a open bulwarked platform, versus a much more substantial housing.

Of course, Tamiya only offers the New Jersey, so it's not like you have another option for the other three ships if you're wanting an '80s build.

[Cliffy B]

Wanted to share something we discovered last week. Its a known fact that at least some ships have little weld marks that outline the hull numbers to ease painting. Well I can now confirm that BB-63 and BB-64 have said marks for their large shaded numbers AND their small WWII hull numbers.

I knew about BB-63's but I could never see them on BB-64. Ours are so ground down that you can only see them in certain lighting conditions. The sun was on its way down last week as we walked by the bow on our way home and BAM!

Behold! Make sure to click through and view them at full resolution.

BB-63: Look inside the upper part of the "6".


BB-64: Look right above the "4".


Now all I need is someone else to confirm if BB-61 and BB-62 have the same markings. Anyone know?

-Mike