1:200 USS NEW JERSEY (BB-62) 68-69 (Trumpeter MISSOURI kit)

[Fliger747]

Looking forward to the photos after you get it primed. Well done ladders of this sort add a lot to the overall impression. With this and your crane, the stern will be well appointed.

Cheers. Tom

[tko24]

BB62Vet, I have another question since you have the plans reduced to 1/200. From about the center of the ship, with the hull sitting on a flat service, how far up from the keel in milimeters is the actual waterline on the kit hull? Another poster was able to help me with this problem on my 1/200 Bismarck kit since Trumpeter has stopping molding waterline indicators on their full hull kits. I'm hoping you can help me with this since you have the plans in the right scale. I have the tool for marking the waterline on the hull, I just need a measurment to go by. I'm looking forward to seeing your progress with your build.

One more question, where did you take your 1/96 plans to get reduced and printed?

Thanks

[BB62vet]

Tom,

Yea, I'm hoping it turns out (stern rungs) ok - hopefully, the paint will arrive this weekend.

TKO,

I'm at home and when I get back to my workshop (Sun.) I'll check on the waterline distance for you and post Monday a.m. in both mm and ft/in.

As for the reduced plans, I work in the engineering dept. of a large company and we have a large format printer/copier that also reduces.

Also - you can find dimensioned drawings of the radars at Floating Drydock - $10.00 per drawing - see their website for details.

Later,

Hank

[pghgeorge]

I have some photos over on Flickr for anyone who's interested.
http://flic.kr/s/aHsjF98d4Q

[BB62vet]

pghgeorge -

Nice album - I've bookmarked for future reference.

Hank

[Fliger747]

Friedman lists the design full load draft at 36' 2 1/2" which works out in 1:200 as 2.1725" if you have a caliper. The design waterline was parallel to the keel fore and aft, unlike some references to the current museum ships which are at a light displacement fore. The depth of the boot top may vary with the individual ship and era.

I am sure Hank will have more definitive information for you.

Cheers. Tom

[BB62vet]

Tom wrote:

Friedman lists the design full load draft at 36' 2 1/2" which works out in 1:200 as 2.1725" if you have a caliper.

Thanks for the info - saves me a bunch of reading

I'll have to check that versus the TKW drawings and other plans I have as a double check. I'm still waiting on Chesely plans from F.D. since they have the 67-69 superstructure modifications in addition to the overall hull (sheer) plan.

Hank

[Fliger747]

It might be hat there is some minor variance in the design load draft at various times in the ships career. Probably a bit less top weight with the removal of the light Aa.

[BB62vet]

You're on the right track on that, Tom - The sheer plan of NJ 67-69 should concur with the weight requirements of that period.

Hank

[Fliger747]

In one of my books a Thomas Walkiowiak drawing shows a boot topping narrow at the stern and broad at the bow, had not seen that before.

Tom

[BB62vet]

Boot topping is a solid band of black paint that is parallel from aft to stern. Same thickness from one end to the other.

Hank

[Fliger747]

It should be the same thickness bow to stern, normally. The illustration of Iowa as completed, on page 318, of Friedman, with the small non wraparound platform on the 08 level shows this variable thickness boot topping. As the ship without ammunition loads tends to assume a bow high attitude and this was the pre shakedown configuration, perhaps it was to work with different displacements on trials? I have some dim recollection of seeing a drydock photo of this. Very dim.

I have not seen the ship in service with this type of boot top!

Cheers. Tom

[finn]

Hi Hank, I have question for you if you wouldn't mind giving your opinion. I have my MISSOURI kit and am going to build it as a radio controlled model. My question is since you have seen the pontos upgrade kit, do you think it will hold up to the transporting and running of the model or would you foresee problems with bits falling off? I really like the looks of the P E parts but just not sure if its the smart thing to do. I have built R C boats but nothing this big or detailed with this much P E. I would hate to spend the money and only use a few of the pieces. Any thoughts you might have would be appreciated. Looking forward to seeing how you progress on your project.

Rick

[BB62vet]

Rick,

Thanks for the question. Not sure if I'm the correct one to answer, but here goes:

I do have the Pontos detail set and it is V-E-R-Y minute and extensive. What era are you building your MISSOURI? WWII, Korea, or 80's? That will effect the amount of the PE you will be using. Items that would go on the hull might have to be really thought out esp. where drilling holes is concerned. One way with this would be to make sure your drill bit has a stop on the bit so that it ONLY makes a hole the needed distance into the plastic. That way you could keep it from drilling thru. Since most modelers use Cryo glue with PE I don't see where that would present a problem.

I'll make the assumption that your R/C "steaming" will occur in fresh water not salt water, so I really don't know of anything else that would effect using the PE set. You would need to take extra care with any super detailed model so that you don't ruin an otherwise beautiful model getting it to and from the "pool".

I have a fellow modeler friend in NC who does large scale plastic R/C ships - tankers, WWII cruisers, destroyers, etc. - he bangs them around quite handily (perhaps not the best way to do things) and keeps on keeping on! His models do need repairs after every outing, though.

As a member of USS NEW JERSEY Reunion, Inc. I was at the 1991 ship's reunion in Daytona Beach, FL and Bob Brown brought his 1:96 USS NEW JERSEY (WWII) model - fully r/c w/lights & sounds - took 4 men to carry her to the motel pool for an afternoon "cruise". Was quite the deal. His model was pre-PE days and his detail was phenomenal - so, take that as a cue. His model has been a "crowd pleaser" wherever he is asked to show it.

Hope this was helpful - good luck w/your BIG MO!!

Hank

[Scale Shipyard / W.L.U.]

Hi:
The boot top on the Iowa class battleships is indeed wider at the bow then it is at the stern.
I just pulled the Draft Marks and Boot Topping drawings for BB-61 class out of my files here. This drawing is signed off on 8-18-1941 with revisions to Jun-6-1944.

The boot top is specified as Design waterline at 34'-9 1/4" with the boot topping at the bow being 5'-6 1/2 below this line and 17" above this lone for a total of 6'-11 1/2" in width top to bottom.
At the stern it is 12 1/2" below this line and 17" above the design W.L. for a total of 29 1/2" width top to bottom.

The above data is for BB-61 & BB-62
For BB-63 through BB-66 the top of the boot top was to be at 38' 2 1/4" which would put the design W.L at 36'-9 1/4" as the boot top is typically 17" above D.W.L. on battleships. The data for BB-63 -66 was added on Jul-29-1943

[BB62vet]

Lee,

Thanks for the info - I'll see how that compares with the Chesley & TLK plans I have for NEW JERSEY - 67-69. I have always thought that the boot topping was a black band that was parallel from stem to stern - I stand corrected. Should be an interesting task to tape this off correctly!!!

Hank

[Scale Shipyard / W.L.U.]

Hank:

I got to tell you it is a real bear to tape that off, I did it with my 1:96 scale New Jersey many years ago and I am going to have to do it again this summer when I give her a new paint job.

[Fliger747]

I would guess a proper way to do it would be to set the hull at the proper incline on appropriate hull blocks and trace the top and bottom boot lines. Question... I see the ship as built having this boot top configuration, but possibly not at a later date?

Cheers: T

[BB62vet]

Lee/Tom,

Re. the black boot topping:

I have the usual waterline markers (Model Expo, etc.) and a smaller one I built a couple years ago (same idea) but instead of a pencil or lead holder, I intend to use a scribe so that the waterline is scratched into the hull. I'm thinking that Tom's idea about securing the hull to the workbase at the proper inclination would work and then simply draw carefully the marker/scribe around the hull - both upper and lower topping lines. The stern, of course, will take extra care to make the scribe without mistakes.

I'm also inclined at this point to drill a couple small holes thru the bottom of the keel area since the model will be a static display (or small holes over the line of drydock blocks that will hold the model off the baseboard) and use those holes for securing the hull for marking.

Hank

[Fliger747]

I can see where a scribed line would have great advantage for taping and painting, but certainly not a method for anyone faint of heart! I suspect the plastic is soft enough to scribe fairly well. My hull covered with fiberglass etc is far too hard to scribe easily. To hold my marking impliment, a 0.5 mm mechanical pencil, I have a very heavy adjustable armed device machinists use to hold precision measuring devices. With a ship this size another challenge is a sufficiently flat and smooth surface to use as a reference. I had two options, a large draftsmans table which I use as a site for fitting out, or a precision flat ground cast iron top of the cabinet makers table saw I have. The draftsmans table turned out to be sufficiently flat and smooth, at least for pencil work.

Indeed the cut under at the stern requires some care. Even the light pressure of a pencil marking would tend to want to deflect, then the taping is somewhat of an adventure. I can see where a tipped marker might require less marking pressure than a pencil.

I need to check a bit further and see if a tapered boot top applies to my late days of commission build.

Cheers. Tom