The Ship Model Forum

Steve, just what is included in that US Navy Booklets of General Plans ? I've got a .PDF file of the Booklet of General Plans for Missouri, which is 17 pages, and covers pretty much everything. Do you think the Montana booklet would be the same? If so, I'll order the thing ASAP!

Bill

_________________

The kids never ask me, "Are we there yet?"

I'm not sure how many sheets, my guess would be at least five given that the following are included:

A-MAIN DECK
B-OUTBOARD PROFILE
C-BRIDGES
D-SUPERSTRUCTURE DECK
P-DATA
Q-MISC. INTERIOR DECKS
R-MISC. EXTERIOR DECKS

Sadly missing are hull sections.

You might email Tom Walkowiak at Floating Drydock and ask him to be sure.

IMHO, the Booklets of General Plans are superb for modelers, not too big (usually 1/192nd scale), packed with detail and very, very accurate. And for between $25-30 they are a steal.

I started working in 1/192 scale for two reasons: the availability of the Booklets through Floating Drydock for cheap, and the wow-factor size of the models when built.

If you build a Montana, please post pics!!

_________________
Have fun, Monkey around.™

-Steve L.

Complete catalog: - https://www.model-monkey.com/
Follow Model Monkey® on Facebook: - https://www.facebook.com/modelmonkeybookandhobby

Where on the Internet is this PDF file? What website? I think I know what you're talking about and have seen it long ago but can't find it anymore.

Eric,

Here ya go. Missouri Booklet of General Plans.

http://www.ussmissouri.org/documents/blueprints.pdf

_________________

The kids never ask me, "Are we there yet?"

Thanks for posting this, I saved it, it covers everything!

Ric

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

Well.....maybe not everything. The plans are good, that's for sure. But the exterior views depict the Missouri in her Korean War configuration mostly. I would've liked to see the WWII configuration instead. But still, I'm going to use those drawings for some reference purposes for building the Montana. Thanks for the link, Bill.

Hi guys,

As you know from my past posts, I really wasn't convinced that the available 'plans' for Montana were really her 'final design plans'. However, having gotten more info (3 more books, the Windjammer plans and a reliable description of the Floating Drydock Booklet of General Plans) and weighing that with the A.L. Raven plans in Friedman's book, and the plans available on Navsource and other sites, I've finally come to accept that Montana's final design looked like this:



However, as we all know, alot of changes and mods take place during construction, especially when construction takes place during wartime. It's a certainty that the AA would have been increased just as it was on all other WWII ships. So, while the above plan may have been her original design, I'm thinking that it's quite likely that the finished ship would have come out looking very much like this:





So, where does that leave those of us who are trying do build a model of Montana? Especially Eric, who's further along in building than the rest of us. Well, unfortunatly, it leaves us to do a rather expensive blending of superstructure parts from Tamiya's Missouri and Trumpeter's North Carolina. Which really sucks. But, if you take a good, close look at the NorCar
http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery/bb/bb-55/350-rc/rc-index.html
you'll see that it's really the only place to get the needed parts.

This project was expensive enough before I came up with this. But, since we keep on paying Trumpeter's jacked-up prices, they'll keep on charging them. I mean, c'mon, a hundred bucks for a model ship? It's gettin rediculas!

If you really want some fun, total up the costs for doing a 1/350 Montana! A pair of Tamiya Missouris at $50 each; a Trumpeter NorCar at $100; then add in Evergreen V-Groove sheet for decks; a couple hundred bucks worth of PE & resin detail parts; Etc.;Etc.;Etc. Montana will easily hit the $500 mark!!! And that doesn't count what get's spent on reference materials.

Maybe I should take up a cheaper hobby...



Bill

_________________

The kids never ask me, "Are we there yet?"

Bill,

I hear ya about plans, prices, and references. I've had my share of problems with all of that. To build a Montana, there really is only three options:
1. Convert a TAMIYA 1/350 Missouri kit. (I've mentioned measurements for doing this on page 2 of this thread.)
2. Buy the 1/350 resin Montana kit from Yankee Modelworks for $400.
3. Scratchbuild your own Montana from the keel up.

Despite all the differences (Minor or major.) in various plans, drawings, blueprints, etc. of the Montana, the only thing we can really do to build an accurate ship is to just build it the best we can and no more. And even then it still won't be 100% accurate. You build yours your way. I'll build mine my way. And others will build theirs their way. No two Montanas will ever be exactly alike. We'll all build it to our own interpretations. Nobody's right and nobody's (Everybody?) wrong, therefore, everybody wins (or loses.).
While the A.L. Raven drawing could theoretically be considered final, I do have a point to make about it.
1. I don't think the Montana would have had 40mm at the tip of the bow. If the ship had ever entered rough seas, I think the 40mm would have suffered severe damage. But then, the same could be said about 20mm also if placed there. IMO, I think the bow would have had 20mm just like that on the Iowa class. It just looks better.

Funny you should mention about the North Carolina. I was just in my local hobby store yesterday and they had one for $115! As much as it would be nice to get that kit and rob some parts from it to put on the Montana, I just can't see justifying the expense. The only really decent parts from the NC that look like they could belong on the Montana are the boat cranes, bridge superstructure, and the forward 16" fire control tower. Right now, my best friend gave me two extra Missouri kits to rob parts from, so that's what I'll use. As far as photoetch goes, I'll let my friend buy that. After all, it's his ship, so he needs to chip in too with costs.

Besides gluing, puttying, sanding, etc., etc., the only other real major pain for me right now is deciding what to do with the amidships section where the boat cranes and boats are. I am completely undecided as to what to do for this area. As I've said before, I want to keep the cranes and maybe two boats in this area to represent a part of the Montana as it was originally designed in 1940. It would sorta be like what the NC had. But yes, I also realize you can add extra AA there also and I am trying to work out a compromise for that area by putting two 40mm mounts there and also fitting two boats between the 40mm. If anyone has ideas for this area, please let me know. Thanks.

The above post is mine. For some reason, the forum accidentally marked me as "guest".

Mods, Please delete this post. Thanks.

Hi Eric,

I fully understand what you're saying. All of it.

As for me, right now, I have no idea of what I'm gonna do. I really like the design that I currently have

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/GrizzlysPics/1001x134topview.gif
altho I'd probably drop back down to the standard 10 5"/54 turrets. I especially like that big hull and wide, heavily flared bow. I think I've designed one kick-ass BB!

The big problem for me, and the reason that I spend so blasted much time on designs, is that I'm a perfectionist. Not a rivet-counter, mind you, but I want my Montana to be the very best that I can make, which starts with the very best design that I can come up with. But now, with the new info and thoughts, I just don't know which would be the best, stay with my current design, or do up a new one based more on how she'd likely have looked. I guess that I'll just have to work up plans for both, then decide.

Of course, I also don't want to dish out the $ for a NorCar. Especially when I'm only going to use a few parts, and then toss the rest into the parts box.

Different reasons, but I'm starting to get as frustrated with this project as you are.

It would be great to build both versions, but who can afford that?

I should have gotten into WWII armor....


Bill

_________________

The kids never ask me, "Are we there yet?"

On Page 1 of this thread, I listed a bunch of links to references about the Montana. Guess I forgot to include the following in my long list of links:
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/usnshtp/bb/bb67.htm

On Page 1 of this thread, I posted the following links to pics of what the Montana resin hull looked like when my friend first got it 2 years ago.
Well, I've made quite a bit of progress in the last few days as far as puttying, sanding, grinding, etc. and I thought I'd share some pics:









You can definately see the difference in terms of what was sanded and grinded off. So tonight, I need to wash the resin hull a bit of all the dust it has on it, then I'll probably spray another coat of primer this Sunday, then check for more stuff that needs puttying and sanding, and then maybe I can actually get to work on the superstructure, weapons, etc.

Mods - Please delete this post. Thanks.

Mods - Please delete this post. Thanks.

Mods - Please delete this post. Thanks.

Eric, your MT hull is lookin good! Beleive me, I know the amount of work you've put into that thing, and the frustration you've dealt with.

As for my MT, I WILL be starting construction of the hull, main deck and 01 level over the Christmas break. (finally) After 6 months of design work, I finally came to accept the available plans as more or less authentic. So, I broke down and spent the $90.00 on the Trumpeter NC and I'm starting my final revisions of my plans with NC kit parts. It should take 2 to 4 weeks to get my final plans drawn up, but I already know what I'm going to do and how, so I really only need the plans for spacings and exact placements. But, since I'm using my over-size hull design, there's no reason I can't go ahead and start the hull before my plans are fully done.

Once the final plans are finished, I'll post them here for you all to see.

I did throw together a plan, but just 'eyeballed' the measurements. I really like what I've got, and feel that it will be an acceptably accurate MT, as well as being a very unique model.

Right now I'm taking some off from working on the plans, at least a week. I'm tired, run-down and just need a break. When I'm feeling up to it again, I'll start the new plans taking measurements off the actual kit parts.

I've also told everyone that I just want money for Christmas. Hopefully, it'll be enough to cover all the PE and resin parts that I'm going to be needing!

Well, that's it for now.

Bill

_________________

The kids never ask me, "Are we there yet?"

Hey Eric, we look foward to more progress on the hull! You too, Bill!

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

Bill,

You bought a N.C.?! You lucky *******! I would've gotten a NC for myself and used some of the parts for the MT, but I just can't see justifying the expense and then having a leftover hull that is missing the bridge superstructure, forward 16" gunfire control tower, and the boat cranes. What would I build the NC as? It wouldn't be able to be salvaged as a ship if it's missing those parts, especially the bridge stuff.

But anyway, I'm making fairly good progress on the hull right now and will have a second priming done later this week followed by a bit more final puttying and sanding. I'll probably start on laying some new decking (Evergreen V-Groove, .050 spacing, .020 thick) after the first of the new year. I also hope to start on superstructure and other stuff in mid-January. Maybe if there's any interest, I'll start a Progress Pic thread in the Progress Pic forum.

As long as I'm writing this post, I've got a question to ask all the modelers here:
From some of the links I posted showing various plans and blueprints on Page 1 of this thread, I've noticed that there appears to be a third anchor at the bow of the ship which is sitting on the deck (Or is it?) to the left of the anchor chains. The reason I say "Or is it?" is because IIRC, somebody a long time ago posted a pic of a ship that had a anchor sitting in a notched cutout at the bow of a ship. I'm not sure if I should make my Montana have the extra anchor sitting on the deck or in a notched cutout from what I'm describing. Does anyone know exactly what I'm talking about? Were there any Navy ships that had this unusual feature?

Hi Eric,

Hmm, I'm a "... lucky *******! "? Yep, that I am. Because I wasn't going to dish out the $ for the NC, but then I got a raise at work which adds $90 a week to my paycheck!!! So, I treated myself.

Seriously, even with the raise, I likely still wouldn't have bought the thing, except that I went over all the instruction book pics from the review here at ModelWarships (enlarged and shapened), and realized that I could use ALOT more of the NC parts than I'd first guessed. Sure, it's still a lot to pay for a little, but not as bad as it could be. Besides, it'll be the PE, resin and L'Arsenal crew figures that'll bankrupt me!

I read that you're using the .050" v-groove? I ordered the big 12"x24" sheets of .030" for mine. Should be in by Friday. The big problem with MT, is that even with the big sheets, I'll still have a deck seam...

As for the progress pics, I'd love to see them! Why not also post them over on our Battleship Row group?

As for the spare anchor... I honestly don't know about warships carrying a spare up front, but old passenger liners used to. The Titanic did. Now, I can't confirm this, but I read someplace that the bigger warships (BB's, Carriers, maybe CB's) were set up so that in special situations such as an emergency sortie, the anchor chain could be 'cut' in some way to just dump the anchor & chain overboard taking only a fraction of the time that raising the anchors would take. I honestly don't know if that's true or not, but I have heard about it. IF it is true, then carrying a spare anchor (and chain) would make sense, tho I sure wouldn't want to be on the detail replacing them!. As for having the spare in a recessed well or on deck, the recessed well would be the smarter choice. Titanic's was in a recessed well. If the spare is just chained to the deck, and breaks loose in a storm, it'll either go straight over the side, OR it'll take the scenic tour around your foredeck doing incredible damage along the way. I believe carrier and BB anchors were/are in the neighborhood of 30,000lbs each, which is what my school bus weights fully loaded!

BTW, a Google search of 'Battleships spare anchor' brings up some pretty good results.


Bill

_________________

The kids never ask me, "Are we there yet?"