Calling all Iowa-class (BB-61) fans

[RandyM]

I have KA for Missouri in 1/350, and Pontos for Missouri in 1/200 and 1/350. I have yet to use either, though I have used KA on other projects. IMO, they are both good quality, with Pontos offering much more content. I've forgotten what I paid for each. There are lots of comments floating around about the frustrating nature of Pontos' incomplete instructions...

James, take a look at the below. I think I've captured the required correction.

http://www.nulspace.com/hobbies/missouri/112114b.JPG

[BB62vet]

Tom F wrote:

Hank:
You had to rework the Mk38 directors on your model?]

That's best answered by NO and YES - this picture shows my Mk. 38 w/Mk. 13 radar -

This is an older photo (Mar 14) but captures the unit as I constructed it. The fire control optical director (Mk. 38) is pretty much correct - I had to modify the Pontos PE catwalk to correct it to the way NEW JERSEY's was installed. The Mk. 13 radar (above) was scratchbuilt because the Trumpeter kit only includes the Mk. 8 (1943 era) radar. See sketch of later Mk. 13 radar:

NEW JERSEY had the slanted face Mk. 38 and this is captured in the kit.

Hope this answers your question,

Hank

[Guest]

Its the back side of the directors that's the issue. BB-61 and 62 have one design and 63 and 64 have another. Can't remember which is which off hand but one has the back plates ending in a "V" and the other ending in a flat plate, IE 7 sided vs 8 sided.

-Cliffy

[Fliger747]

BB 63 has the later seven sided design with the rear plates being vertical. The early design had a symmetrical shape with two slanted plates as on the front, to the rear, same as installed on SODAK etc.

Cheers. T

[RandyM]

Fairly esoteric question here...

The context is the aft FCS tower, specifically the four director tubs mounted at the forward edges on Missouri. To aid with my sanity, let's agree that the aft-most pair (which are still forward of the forward face of the tower shell) are the mk57 directors, while the forward-most pair are the mk51 directors.

At issue is the vertical location of the mk51 director tubs. The FDD plans indicate that the bottom of the tubs are elevated approximately five-feet from the bottom of the mk57 tubs. I have photos of Missouri which appear to be from the early 80s which confirm this configuration.

However, the FDD plan book contains photos of both the G&C model and the prototype herself from the 1945-ish era in which the tubs are elevated approximately two-feet.

What's the big deal? The higher elevation places these mk51 tubs above the upper lip of the mk57 tubs, while the lower elevation results in an "overlap in elevation" of the two pairs of tubs: the difference is very noticeable.

Help!

[EDIT: here's an image that shows the lower elevation configuration]

[RandyM]

Current State of the Ship...

Here's a fairly large file (1.1MB) - overhead view of the current model. Now over 1,000 solidworks parts and almost 300 subassemblies. As always, if you see anything that needs modification, please let me know. I think it is roughly 60% complete. The primary data is in, and most of the secondary. I've begun on the lesser details (railings, deck fittings, etc.). My goal of creating a reliable reference model is a lofty one, and perhaps ultimately unattainable in terms of "true" accuracy. But if you consider this effort the merging of drawings of reasonable provenance, many photos, and comments from first-hand observers, then I think it holds up to some scrutiny.

http://www.nulspace.com/hobbies/missouri/112414a.JPG

[Fliger747]

Randy:

Check the location of turret three, doesn't look as if there is room to rotate.

Cheers: tom

[BB62vet]

Randy,

First - you've done a FANTASTIC job, so far!!

Second - I concur with Tom F. - Turret 3 is too close to the after deckhouse. Check your location on that.

Hank

[RandyM]

Thanks guys. I did take a look at Turret 3. Per my Floating Drydock plans the center of the barbette is located at approximately frame 160.75 (or maybe 160.66 based on whether you include or exclude the lines in your measurements). Since the frames are on four-foot centers, this places the turret (160.75 * 4 * 12 / 200) = 38.58 inches from the forward perpendicular in 1/200th scale. I opened the maindeck model (which contains the positioning points for all three turrets), and T3 was at 38.58 inches from FP.

A quick look at the forward end of the superstructure revealed the problem: the entire superstructure assembly was shifted rearward 0.26" - or about four feet on the prototype. I think this must have happened recently when I upgraded to SW2015.

Anyway, I correctly positioned the superstructure and oila' - everything is right in virtual world. This image shows T3 turned to its minimal clearance position. By all means, please continue to provide critical feedback.

[EDIT: and of course I just noticed the funky vertical ladder sticking out of the side of the gunhouse: "upgrading" to 2015 seems to have had some unintended side issues.]

http://www.nulspace.com/hobbies/missouri/112514a.JPG

[bigjimslade]

Thanks guys. I did take a look at Turret 3. Per my Floating Drydock plans the center of the barbette is located at approximately frame 160.75 (or maybe 160.66 based on whether you include or exclude the lines in your measurements).
http://www.nulspace.com/hobbies/missouri/112514a.JPG

Turret 3 is located at FR 160-1/2.

[Fliger747]

Jim:

With your seagoing monster, do you have a way of ballasting it once you arrive at a sailing location, fully loaded about 160 Lbs? Quite impressive!

Regards: Tom

[James M]

It's about 130 lbs in the water. I like to run it a little light.

She carries (2) 12v 33amh batteries for propulsion and (1) 6v 26amh battery for the radio and features. She runs for about 8 hours straight.
The batteries are the only ballast that is added to her to get her to the waterline.
Out of the water she's about 45 lbs.

The only real issue is her length. At 9 feet it takes a bit to move around the shop.

James

[Fliger747]

Boat trailer? 45 lbs isn't too bad an empty weight. These large models when done well have a tremendous impact!

Cheers: Tom

[Navy2000]

The nice thing about a model of this size is that handle well in the water. Regardless of wind up to a certain amount the model will perform great unlike smaller models.

Duane

[Fliger747]

I wonder how large some of the models were in the heyday before movie computer graphics where battles were simulated with models, such as "Sink the Bismark" etc? I recall reading about the Gato submarine built for War and Remembrance as being huge!

T

[Navy2000]

Most of the time the models were built in 1/24 scale such as the ones that I was able to restore for a museum here in Largo Fl. I was able to work on 5 of the models that they had the biggest being around 35 feet long of a Battleship. These were Japanese ship models used for the movie Tora, Tora, Tora. I would would assume that all others would have been done in the same scale as well.

That would make an Iowa turn out to be 37 feet long by 4 1/2 feet in beam and weigh in 4618 pounds.

Who has a semi trailer for this?

Duane

[Fliger747]

Turns out the war and remembrance model is at the pompanito museum in San Fransisco and is 25' Long and weighs in at 2 1/2 tons. That works out to about 1:12 1/2. Pinewood Studios near London had a large "pond" For filming such scenes, I imagine repeat with wave and wind equipment.

Cheers. T

[chuck]

I wonder how large some of the models were in the heyday before movie computer graphics where battles were simulated with models, such as "Sink the Bismark" etc? I recall reading about the Gato submarine built for War and Remembrance as being huge!

T

I believe a full size floating type VII Uboat model was built for Das Boot. It was also used in Raiders of the lost Ark. Hunt for the Red October also had a floating model of typhoon so big with some only moderate perspective forcing it looks full size even with Sean Connery on it.

The model for USS Nevada used in Tora Tora Tora was on the USS intrepid museum about 15 years ago. It must have been about 1:48 scale. Too bad it was in poor shape, with lots of a virus damage and wear and tear. I am not sure if it is still there.

[Fliger747]

Intrepid used to have a beautiful Alaska CB1, must have been a 1:92. Many years since I have been back there. The computer generated movie models have great potential but they always screw up and overdo the use of the graphics. Historically accrue movies could be made. Few ordinance explosions look like napalm!

T

[RandyM]

Waiting for filler to dry on the 200th hull, so I'm working on maindeck of 3d model. Finally put the waterway in, and am now adding stanchions. The image below is based on several photos I have of the maindeck stanchions - unfortunately all of these photos are of the same general area (focsl) so I have no way of knowing if this design applies consistently to the rest of the maindeck. Please let me know if this is out of whack.

Also, my FDD plans show a fairly random spacing along the length of the hull. Sometimes there is a reason for this - clearance around a deck fitting, etc., but other times it almost seems like a drawing error. Does anyone have experience with this issue?

Thanks,
Randy