Calling all rebuilt "Big 5" (TN/MD class) fans

[Atma]

I love USS Pennsylvania, but the Dragon 1/700 USS Pennsylvania I believe is the worst kit released after 2005 from a big model manufacture. Really a shame.

[Lester Abbey]

Atma Wrote:

I love USS Pennsylvania, but the Dragon 1/700 USS Pennsylvania I believe is the worst kit released after 2005 from a big model manufacture. Really a shame.

I'm afraid I have to agree - What makes it worse is that the kit is beautifully detailed, finely cast and wholly inaccurate.

I was working on the HP resin Kit of the 1944 Pennsylvania and was making a mess of it (it wasn't well cast) so I ordered the Dragon kit to replace the parts I botched by over sanding etc. I remember being very depressed when i opened the kit and saw the beautiful detail and finely cast bulkheads, splinter shields - and berated myself for wasting so much time on the HP kit.

When I cut the parts I needed from the sprue in the Dragon kit - reality set in; they were unusable. Just wrong. The bridge structure in particular was way out of whack.

In a way I felt better - I went back to repairing the damage I'd inflicted on the HP kit and went on the build a nice - and accurate - model of a ship the looked like a '44 Pennsylvania.

[Guest]

I know the whip antenna locations are different between the Colorado and Maryland as of their last refits and they have 10. But, what about the Tennessee, California, and West Virginia? I only see 4 whip antennas on the Tennessee and California around the aft superstructure. Did they have any more? I don't see any on the West Virginia. Maybe she never had them like the Tennessee and California prior to their 1945 refits?

[Haijun watcher]

The lower hull - and the waterline plate, and the bulges of the upper hull - of the Maryland and Colorado kits are about 1/8" too wide (not scale - I mean literal).
So, not only is the shape of the bulges wrong and making them look too wide; they really are too wide.
- Sean F.

To Sean F. or anyone else,

Is the extra 1/8 inch problem also present in Trumpeter's 1/700 Tennessee and California 1941 and 1944-45 late war kits?

[SeanF]

No, not a problem in any of the TN, CA, and WV kits:

The 1941-fit kits have correct un-bulged hulls.

The post-rebuild kits of these three ships are correctly bulged; their bulges were exceptionally wide for USN vessels.

It is only the MD & CO kits (the only two of the Big Five who got their originally intended refits and the smaller bulges that came with it) where the kit bulge is too wide and misshapen. Seems Trumpeter took the dimensions of the TN/CA/WV bulges and assumed the CO and MD had the same width (which gives us the aforementioned 1/8" excess in the plastic), just a different bulge shape - but Trumpeter then proceeded to get that shape totally wrong (probably only looked at plan and side views, where the bulges' tumblehome isn't apparent - not the first to make that mistake; I've seen the same thing on Niko's USS Florida. But unfortunately Trumpeter repeated the same bulge shape error on their 1:350 New York-class ships)

- Sean F.

[Dick J]

The lower hull - and the waterline plate, and the bulges of the upper hull - of the Maryland and Colorado kits are about 1/8" too wide (not scale - I mean literal).
So, not only is the shape of the bulges wrong and making them look too wide; they really are too wide.
- Sean F.

To Sean F. or anyone else,

Is the extra 1/8 inch problem also present in Trumpeter's 1/700 Tennessee and California 1941 and 1944-45 late war kits?

As built, the Tennessee class and Colorado class ships were all 97' wide. Just before Pearl Harbor, Maryland received blisters that increased her beam to 108' (to still fit through the Panama Canal). The 108' was at the waterline, and the blisters tapered back toward the original hull above that point. Colorado was in the yard at Bremerton getting the same blisters when Pearl was attacked. After the attack, Tennessee, California, and West Virginia were all blistered to 114' as part of their modernizations, and the blisters were vertical along their length. Trumpeter's kits of those three are close enough in size to what they should have been. However, Trumpy wanted to use the same bottom plate for their Maryland and Colorado kits and that makes them too wide for scale. Also, the blisters on those two kits are vertical rather than tapered, which emphasizes their over-sizing. So only those two are too wide. They are a scale 114' when they should be a scale 108'. The 1941 Tennessee class kits don't have blisters and so are a scale 97'. (or at least are close enough)

[Haijun watcher]

What if I used a New Mexico class hull from a resin Classic Warships kit 1-700 Idaho kit ?

Aside from the fact their hull geometry was pretty much identical, from what I read online, the New Mexico, Tennessee and Colorado classes were also all roughly 624 feet long (190 meters) and 97 feet wide (around 29 meters).

So instead of cutting up the extra eighth of an inch off a Trumpeter Maryland hull as Sean F demonstrated in previous pages, would it be feasible to just place the Maryland or Colorado upper works and cage masts on a New Mexico class hull? (in order to make a 1942 Colorado or Maryland)

The Classic Warships Idaho kit I have is a 1945 version. I also have the Trumpeter Maryland kit but was stalled from finishing it ever since Sean brought up the extra one eighth inch issue.

I can always use the rest of the modernized Idaho kit later with a modified Maryland hull later on.

[Dick J]

What if I used a New Mexico class hull from a resin Classic Warships kit 1-700 Idaho kit ?

Aside from the fact their hull geometry was pretty much identical, from what I read online, the New Mexico, Tennessee and Colorado classes were also all roughly 624 feet long (190 meters) and 97 feet wide (around 29 meters).

So instead of cutting up the extra eighth of an inch off a Trumpeter Maryland hull as Sean F demonstrated in previous pages, would it be feasible to just place the Maryland or Colorado upper works and cage masts on a New Mexico class hull? (in order to make a 1942 Colorado or Maryland).

It would be easier to get a '41 Colorado class kit and add the blisters. Matching deck details in the filled-in deck notches would be much more difficult.

[bioshock73]

I'm thinking of getting a set of drawings of the Tennessee from Floating Drydock. Anyone use their blueprints and how are they?

[ModelMonkey]

I'm thinking of getting a set of drawings of the Tennessee from Floating Drydock. Anyone use their blueprints and how are they?

Drawings by Thomas Walkowiak and the late Alan B. Chesley are very good. Both can be had at The Floating Drydock. And Tom Walkowiak, TFD's owner, is a pleasure to work with.

[bioshock73]

Drawings by Thomas Walkowiak and the late Alan B. Chesley are very good. Both can be had at The Floating Drydock. And Tom Walkowiak, TFD's owner, is a pleasure to work with.

I might try to order a set when I get home from work.

[Atma]

Hello friends


This is USS West Virginia, unknown date but it seems to be a post rebuild. Whats the device on her number 3 turret and why is it missing from Trumpeter's USS West Virginia 1945.
Here is one more:

[bioshock73]

MK. 27 radar antennas. The California had them installed after her 1945 refit along with other radar and anti-aircraft weapon upgrades. Page 141 of USS California by David Doyle has a close up picture that's not in navsource.

[Atma]

Its hard to believe that the number #3 turret was a stable platform for such a delicate instrument. What about vibration when number #3 turret was on action.

[bioshock73]

shock mounts would be my guess.

[bioshock73]

For the camouflage on the Colorado, were 4 colors used? In navsource's pics, it looks like 4 colors on the hull. Light gray, ocean gray and black. If a fourth color was used what was it?

[SeanF]

For the camouflage on the Colorado, were 4 colors used? In navsource's pics, it looks like 4 colors on the hull. Light gray, ocean gray and black. If a fourth color was used what was it?

This was discussed previously on this thread; see page 8. It's 3 colors, the apparent fourth is an optical illusion.

- Sean F.

[bioshock73]

For the camouflage on the Colorado, were 4 colors used? In navsource's pics, it looks like 4 colors on the hull. Light gray, ocean gray and black. If a fourth color was used what was it?

This was discussed previously on this thread; see page 8. It's 3 colors, the apparent fourth is an optical illusion.

- Sean F.

Couldn't remember where I saw that discussion. I am nowhere near to painting my Colorado. I'm planning things ahead of time. Damn trumpy's paint guide.

[Atma]

Did USS West Virginia lose her number 3# turret optical rangefinders ? Some time after late 1944/ early 1945 when a pair of 27s mark radar was installed on number 3# turret. Did USS California lost her too ?
Thanks in advance.

[bioshock73]

Did USS West Virginia lose her number 3# turret optical rangefinders ? Some time after late 1944/ early 1945 when a pair of 27s mark radar was installed on number 3# turret. Did USS California lost her too ?
Thanks in advance.

Both had them removed.